Teams Average - by draft selections

[Quixote]

OK.

This is spurred in part by boredom and in part by some lovely Essendon supporters at the game on Sunday, referring St Kilda as a bunch hack number one draft picks.


I've collated the draft history of our 22 from Sunday. For traded players, I've used the number that WE used to obtain said player, what WE gave up to get the player. In some cases - for example, Gardiner and Ray - this works in our favour, that is, we gave up less than the original market figure. In others - eg, Schnieder and McQualter - it doesn't.

For rookie drafted players I've simply added 70 draft picks to their figure. That is, 13 in the rookie draft equals 83 overall. The addition of 70 is arbitrary but if used as a constant when comparing with other teams, sound.

I realise there are a few methods you could use go about this, but this is my preliminary attempt.


STKFC:

Blake – 24

Dawson – 83

Ball – 2

Goddard – 1

Roo – 1

Kosi – 2

Joey – 37

Hayes - 11

S Fisher – 55

Gilbert – 33

Gardiner – 43

King – 94

Jones – 79

McQualter – 17

Baker – 27

Milne – 93

Schnieder – 26

Geary – 128

Gwilt – 63

Dal – 13

Ray – 31

Gram - 23



Now, the result.

The average draft pick 'age' of our team on Sunday - according to the above figures, divided by 22 - was 40.27.





I would suggest a combination of very smart recruiting and a few early draft picks is in combination here, resulting in a well-drilled team that is travelling pretty bloody nicely.

It would be interesting to see the results of a similar survey from other teams - especially Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn.


So much for the myth of St Kilda being a team of gifted high draft picks!


I do wonder how certain other Clubs would fare...

 

[Zvim]

Is there method to your madness?

 

[markr]

These two player blocks have the same pick average:

Ball – 2
Goddard – 1
Roo – 1
Kosi – 2
Geary – 128

Ray – 31
Joey – 37
Gram - 23
Schnieder – 26
McQualter – 17

Which block of draft picks would you rather have? That's why the "average" of draft picks is pointless, their "value" isn't linear.

 

[liz]

Major flaw to your analysis - even if you assume some kind of relationship between draft pick used and output (quality/quantity) it is foolish to presume it is linear. The difference between "expected value" of a number 1 pick and a number 10 pick, say, is hugely different than the difference between "expected values" of the number 101 pick and the number 110 pick.

 

[The Final Word]

Should use median not mean. Median is 29, i.e. half your team was first or second round.

 

[snomeD]

Ray - Wasn't he a number 3? or 4?
Gardiner? #1?
I like how you put Geary in at 128... That sure pumps up your average doesn't it

 

[debranche]

Apt user name: a quixotically devised analysis.

 

[whelan=legend]

Should use median not mean. Median is 29, i.e. half your team was first or second round.

Exactly what I was going to say. The average is deceptive in this scenario.

 

[Quixote]

Should use median not mean. Median is 29, i.e. half your team was first or second round.

Correct. And the other half of the team is third, fourth round and beyond.

In the case of the Saints, both the median and mean are relevant figures I believe - after the median figure, there are just three picks in the 30's until the numbers stretch into very high picks indeed. Hence the need for a mean figure.

1, 1, 2, 2, 11,13,17, 23, 24, 26, 27 - Median - 31, 33, 37, 43,55,63, 79, 83, 93, 94 128

 

[rainman06]

Another Aints supporter who let the bombers get under his skin on Sunday night....

 

[Quixote]

Ray - Wasn't he a number 3? or 4?
Gardiner? #1?
I like how you put Geary in at 128... That sure pumps up your average doesn't it

As I stated, the figures are based on what WE paid for the players. And as such are accurate. One Club's inability to get the most out of a player does not affect us.

Geary is a justified 128 - third round rookie draft selection.

 

[blues4flag]

I'll oblige. I assume PSD picks is also # + 70?

Carlton's 22 on the weekend:

Murphy: 1
Kreuzer: 1
Gibbs: 1
Judd: 3 and 4 (Kennedy)
Yarran: 6
Russell: 9
Hampson: 17
Bower: 20
Scotland: 35
Austin: 35
Browne: 36
Fevola: 38
Robinson: 40
Simpson: 45
Armfield: 46
Waite: 46
Hadley: 52
Joseph: 72
Stevens: 72
Betts: 73
Thornton: 81
Jamison: 87

Average of ~37, counting Judd as #3.

That aside, it does provide some interesting insight into how a club built a list. Clearly the focus of Carlton's recruiting has been on mids early in the draft, with a focus on talls with our second pick in recent years (Austin, Bower, Hampson). Our defence is largely reliant on later picks in Thornton, Jamison and Waite (though F/S), while Yarran is the only forward we've spent a high pick on in yonks (discluding the traded Kennedy).

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's all relative. Our best 22 right now might actually blow it out a bit more. Our round 1 team contained a couple more rookies.

Russell - 9
Murphy - 1
Gibbs - 1
Judd - 3 (I know we gave up a player and another pick as well but that isn't allowed for and Judd was taken at 3 originally so will have to do).
Simpson - 45
Kreuzer - 1
Hadley - 52 (trade)
Robinson - 40
Yarran - 6
Browne - 36
Bower - 20
Betts - 73 (PSD)
Austin - 35
Hampson - 17
Stevens - 72 (PSD)
Fevola - 38
Armfield - 46
Scotland - 35 (trade)
Waite - 46
Thornton - 81
Jamison - 87
Joseph - 72

= 816

= avg 37.04

I suspect most team will be around the same mark as we all have rookie elevations. As stated our best team right now would change it a little as Walker would come in (2), Carrazzo 72, Grigg 19, Jacobs based on his ruck form before injury this year (146), Houlihan 73 who was dropped for disciplinary reasons. Yarran and Hampson are two that would possibly give way and they are top 20 draft picks. Or we could do as we did at the start of the year and have rookie Garlett in ahead of Yarran.

Most teams will fluctuate between about 35 and 50 I think you will find.

Thanks b4f, I missed it by that much.

 

[Quixote]

These two player blocks have the same pick average:

Ball – 2
Goddard – 1
Roo – 1
Kosi – 2
Geary – 128

Ray – 31
Joey – 37
Gram - 23
Schnieder – 26
McQualter – 17

Which block of draft picks would you rather have? That's why the "average" of draft picks is pointless, their "value" isn't linear.

Yet one group would be rendered quite useless without the other. Their value is connected.

 

[mollyfud]

With out doing the maths, I think you would find the Hawks match up very favorably. They have numerous rookies in there list. Also would be interesting to look at how we got the draft picks. For example. Hodge was a number 1 pick, but we got it when we traded for it. Lewis was number 7 but again a result of numerous trades.
Interesting analysis

 

[mollyfud]

I'll oblige. I assume PSD picks is also # + 70?

Carlton's 22 on the weekend:

Murphy: 1
Kreuzer: 1
Gibbs: 1
Judd: 3 and 4 (Kennedy)
Yarran: 6
Russell: 9
Hampson: 17
Bower: 20
Scotland: 35
Austin: 35
Browne: 36
Fevola: 38
Robinson: 40
Simpson: 45
Armfield: 46
Waite: 46
Hadley: 52
Joseph: 72
Stevens: 72
Betts: 73
Thornton: 81
Jamison: 87

Average of ~37, counting Judd as #3.

That aside, it does provide some interesting insight into how a club built a list. Clearly the focus of Carlton's recruiting has been on mids early in the draft, with a focus on talls with our second pick in recent years (Austin, Bower, Hampson). Our defence is largely reliant on later picks in Thornton, Jamison and Waite (though F/S), while Yarran is the only forward we've spent a high pick on in yonks (discluding the traded Kennedy).

Not sure that the accounting for Stevens is accurate but not sure there is a better method. Maybe his original Draft location.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Wouldn't work for Geelong either, as it doesn't take into account the Cats' success/luck with Father/Son picks. Geelong's highest draft selection in the past fifteen years I believe is #7 (twice).

 

[Quixote]

Major flaw to your analysis - even if you assume some kind of relationship between draft pick used and output (quality/quantity)

I would have thought that is what the whole system is based around??

 

[Mr Lizard]

I did Hawthorn's premiership side. I could only find Gilham in rookie/pre-season draft lists, so have just called all the rookies (and PSD) as 70 except Gilham. This lowers the average a bit.

Hodge - 1
Roughead - 2
Ellis - 3
Buddy - 5
Lewis - 7
Croad - 10
Rioli - 12
Crawford - 13
Birchall - 14
Ladson - 16
Renouf - 24
Brown - 32
Mitchell - 36
Williams - 43
Dew - 45
Bateman - 48
Guerra - 70
Campbell - 70
Osborne - 70
Young - 70
Sewell - 70
Gilham - 104

Average - 35

I'm not really sure if this means anything.

 

[lamaros]

That's why the "average" of draft picks is pointless, their "value" isn't linear.

Exactly.

Also Carlton fans, you would do this:

Judd: 3
Judd: 4

You have to cound him twice, thus lowering the average, if you want to participate in this pointless exercise.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Exactly.

Also Carlton fans, you would do this:

Judd: 3
Judd: 4

You have to cound him twice, thus lowering the average, if you want to participate in this pointless exercise.

I'll only do it if we can actually have two Judd's playing for us.

 

[OB1]

Its good to see you're a strong individual & didn't let those nasty taunts get to you.

BTW - you will find similar results for Carlton as far a no.1 picks go (hence people's taunts to Carlton supporters) but Essendon for example have never had a pick 1 (and haven't had the spoon that goes with it since the 30's). The team on Sunday only had 2 top 10 picks (Ryder pick 7 & Myers pick 6).

 

[Quixote]

PSD and Father/Son are different cases to the Rookie Draft (essentially an extension of the National) and should thus be treated in another way.

The PSD is a tricky one for numerous reasons. The best solution I can think of right now would be a figure dictating the middle ground between their original draft selection and PSD (70 plus PSD selection). So, if a player was originally drafted at 10, and taken pick 10 in the PSD, he'd have an overall value of 45.

The Father/Son... my only thought is that you generously give a value of 16 to each father/son pick. If you look back through the years of these selections (before the rule changes), I don't think there are many that would have survived the First Round.


I realise all of this is specualtive and you wouldn't go putting your house on it etc etc.

It does, I think, give an insight into the various lists, their drafting strategies and de-bunk certain myths people seem to want to cling onto, year after year.

 

[Quixote]

Its good to see you're a strong individual & didn't let those nasty taunts get to you.

BTW - you will find similar results for Carlton as far a no.1 picks go (hence people's taunts to Carlton supporters) but Essendon for example have never had a pick 1 (and haven't had the spoon that goes with it since the 30's). The team on Sunday only had 2 top 10 picks (Ryder pick 7 & Myers pick 6).

Care to do the figures?


Didn't get to me at all - I prefer a more sustained, cognitive form of sledging mate.

Was good to have several Essendon supporters congratulate me after the game for sticking it to a certain few of your lets say 'less illustrious' supporters.

When I say 'less illustrious', read: similar breed to that group on L1 who got their heads pounded by security and police.

 

[Furn]

By this rational a trade of picks 1,2 and 80 for picks 20,30 and 33 would be a fair trade for both parties as they average out the same.