List Mgmt. Tim Kelly remains a Cat for 2019

[catempire]

No the difference is on average you need about 3.2 picks at number 5 to get an AA. At number 19 or 20 that balloons out to 17. Therefore, the chances of getting an AA or a top liner dramatically reduces at 19 and 20. Also if you are right then the AFL points system should be more trusted than all the recruiting teams because they are the people you speak of when saying that high draft picks are overvalued. No recruting team would ever swap 5 for 19 and 20.

No, the points system is objective and humans are fallible.

 

[foodles05]

No, the points system is objective and humans are fallible.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot that statistics and point systems were infallible. My mistake. We will go with your brilliant observations. But just to clarify you think the points system is a better judge of the value of draft picks than the experts who work in the industry? One example...assuming you are right. You would be happy to swap picks 17, 30 and 50 for pick 3?

 

[Tony Barber]

You are wrong about pick 5. A little history lesson for you. Over the last few years Matt Buntine, Jake Stringer, Kade kolo, Will Setterfield. There is no guarantees at pick 5. However T Kelly is an absolute guarantee. That is the point! You would not trade one of those players for T Kelly. People romanticise draft picks too much.

Hey, if they want to hand over pick 5 then let them go for it.
I'd much rather 'gamble' on a KPF in this draft with pick 5 than keeping Kelly.

 

[catempire]

Oh I'm sorry I forgot that statistics and point systems were infallible. My mistake. We will go with your brilliant observations. But just to clarify you think the points system is a better judge of the value of draft picks than the experts who work in the industry? One example...assuming you are right. You would be happy to swap picks 17, 30 and 50 for pick 3?

No need to put words in my mouth. I’m just stating the fact that the points system is based on objective observations of historical success of draft picks. Key there being *objective*.

Recruiters are human beings and therefore subject to biases, preferences and irrelevances.

Any recruiter, acting rationally, should be indifferent between combinations of draft picks that have the same points value. That’s simple logic.

 

[foodles05]

No need to put words in my mouth. I’m just stating the fact that the points system is based on objective observations of historical success of draft picks. Key there being *objective*.

Recruiters are human beings and therefore subject to biases, preferences and irrelevances.

Any recruiter, acting rationally, should be indifferent between combinations of draft picks that have the same points value. That’s simple logic.

That isn't right. The points system is fallible!! So you would swap pick 3 for 17,30 and 50 would you?

 

[catempire]

That isn't right. The points system is fallible!! So you would swap pick 3 for 17,30 and 50 would you?

It is right. It is objective. Unlike any of us.

 

[foodles05]

It is right. It is objective. Unlike any of us.

You didnt answer the question about whether you would make that trade and you do realise that the system was developed off subjective criteria don't you? They people who put it together still had to decide on games played, awards, AA's ect and what was more important as a measurement. It is not automatically right but maybe you can't understand that. Maybe you should explain to me how you think they developed the points system that you are so beholden to?

 

[catempire]

You didnt answer the question about whether you would make that trade and you do realise that the system was developed off subjective criteria don't you? They people who put it together still had to decide on games played, awards, AA's ect and what was more important as a measurement. It is not automatically right but maybe you can't understand that. Maybe you should explain to me how you think they developed the points system that you are so beholden to?

Answering the question goes against the point I am making: my view holds no value in comparison to an objective metric.

 

[foodles05]

Answering the question goes against the point I am making: my view holds no value in comparison to an objective metric.

Do you understand how they came up with this objective metric? Please explain?

 

[catempire]

Do you understand how they came up with this objective metric? Please explain?

I do. It is based on historical data about player salaries.

 

[foodles05]

I do. It is based on historical data about player salaries.

So its a system based on the objective opinions of list managers who determined what players at their club and others were worth? Wow that's a reasonable chink in your objectively perfect system and that's just one based on the very limited info you have given me. If it is based on subjective opinions of people who decide on the salaries how is it a perfectly objective measure?

 

[catempire]

So its a system based on the objective opinions of list managers who determined what players at their club and others were worth? Wow that's a reasonable chink in your objectively perfect system and that's just one based on the very limited info you have given me. If it is based on subjective opinions of people who decide on the salaries how is it a perfectly objective measure?

As you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth this is clearly pointless.

 

[foodles05]

As you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth this is clearly pointless.

Ok I will make it simple so you can't dodge the answers that don't suit you. Is it based on salaries and are those salaries subjectively decided by people within the various clubs?

 

[foodles05]

As you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth this is clearly pointless.

For the future it is ok to lose an argument but to run and hide once you have been proven wrong is probably a little childish!

 

[Landgraft]

No one is giving up pick 5.
You can use points all you want.

But at pick 5 you're getting a known quantity / possible star.
Clubs will be more happy to give up say pick 22 and 25 because they are easier to get hold of.

In response to langraft. No I wasn't suggesting picks in the 30's.
And I wasn't saying I'd be happy to lose him.

Is pick 5 a known quantity or a possible star? It certainly hasn't consistently been either based on previous drafts.

Draft picks have so much value until you use them... then in hindsight it was just another pick. It's probably less useful to focus on the individual 'value' a pick is supposed to offer and instead try to hit the draft in targeted clusters.

This is the ridiculous thing about points. There is no way anyone would trade pick 5 for 19 & 20 but they would certainly entertain 18 for 35 & 36. Points are a guide and sometimes totally irrelevant in the real world.

West Coast took that risk just last year... trading out their future first to get several bites in the second round.

https://www.triplem.com.au/sport/afl/trade-tracker/gold-coast-and-west-coast-swap-draft-picks

Obviously in this case it's worked out extremely well for them, with the year they've had. But it involved deciding that even if they did dip (which was widely expected) the draft crop in front of them had enough potential in the range they were getting into to justify the transaction.

Funnily enough I'm pretty sure part of their thinking would have been to use those picks to get the star of this thread, Tim Kelly.

 

[Turbocat]

Seems like we should be focused on Kelly rather than the DVI.. but id say just like anything like this you can make an argument both ways.. If we took P40 for Kelly we would be screaming..but if we end up with a player like Stewart ..then its sort of irrelevant that it was P40 we traded him for. Its Caddy for Parfit etc. What id be willing to accept is biased by my opinion that we lack early picked players .. ie we have not had enough chance to pick when the player would be close to our most desired.

From what i saw in the finals its sort of pivoted , my head on needs a bit so the likes of OHallaran and Smith come into play for needs as I feel we ned to transitioning our key players in the engine room. To balance that the rarity of opportunity to get a tall we like is something we have not done for a long time.. probably not since SKing... so it would be ironic we did it again chasing another King.

imo The issue with any historical data like dvi is blends data ..it says on average we start here at 1 ..and we trend down etc. and best there is to some degree a fitting of data to meet the outcome they want ...It may or may not be relevant to each club... a couple of late picks for us may be of more use if wells can find players better than average..




Would I trade P2 (2517) for 18 19 30 (2562) no I wouldn't this year but my knowledge is no where near Wells etc but it would give us a chance to gather "perceived" A grade talent.
Would I be happy if the outcome was Josh Schache and then missing Josh Gresham , Ryan Burton and Mason Redman .. no probably not. and who we would we have picked at those picks ..who's to say mabye we pick Sier or Tom Cole at 30

 

[catempire]

Ok I will make it simple so you can't dodge the answers that don't suit you. Is it based on salaries and are those salaries subjectively decided by people within the various clubs?

Yawn

 

[catempire]

For the future it is ok to lose an argument but to run and hide once you have been proven wrong is probably a little childish!

Yawn

 

[catempire]

Nice chart.

#objective

 

[cynical]

draft pick points are just a guide, like all data

 

[Sttew]

You are wrong about pick 5. A little history lesson for you. Over the last few years Matt Buntine, Jake Stringer, Kade kolo, Will Setterfield. There is no guarantees at pick 5. However T Kelly is an absolute guarantee. That is the point! You would not trade one of those players for T Kelly. People romanticise draft picks too much.

There is no guarantee with Pick 1 either - look at Tom Boyd

 

[foodles05]

Seems like we should be focused on Kelly rather than the DVI.. but id say just like anything like this you can make an argument both ways.. If we took P40 for Kelly we would be screaming..but if we end up with a player like Stewart ..then its sort of irrelevant that it was P40 we traded him for. Its Caddy for Parfit etc. What id be willing to accept is biased by my opinion that we lack early picked players .. ie we have not had enough chance to pick when the player would be close to our most desired.

From what i saw in the finals its sort of pivoted , my head on needs a bit so the likes of OHallaran and Smith come into play for needs as I feel we ned to transitioning our key players in the engine room. To balance that the rarity of opportunity to get a tall we like is something we have not done for a long time.. probably not since SKing... so it would be ironic we did it again chasing another King.

imo The issue with any historical data like dvi is blends data ..it says on average we start here at 1 ..and we trend down etc. and best there is to some degree a fitting of data to meet the outcome they want ...It may or may not be relevant to each club... a couple of late picks for us may be of more use if wells can find players better than average..
View attachment 565188



Would I trade P2 (2517) for 18 19 30 (2562) no I wouldn't this year but my knowledge is no where near Wells etc but it would give us a chance to gather "perceived" A grade talent.
Would I be happy if the outcome was Josh Schache and then missing Josh Gresham , Ryan Burton and Mason Redman .. no probably not. and who we would we have picked at those picks ..who's to say mabye we pick Sier or Tom Cole at 30

Hang on you must have missed Catempire's statements. Apparently it is all irrelevant because the point system isn't just a guide it's an infallible totally objective measurement that is perfect and can't be disputed by mere humans!!

 

[foodles05]

draft pick points are just a guide, like all data

You must not have read Catempire's statements as well. They aren't a guide they are infallible in all their objective majesty!!

 

[catempire]

Now you're getting it foodles05

 

[Turbocat]

Hang on you must have missed Catempire's statements. Apparently it is all irrelevant because the point system isn't just a guide it's an infallible totally objective measurement that is perfect and can't be disputed by mere humans!!

Did you ever see Joh Bjelke-Petersen interviewed .. .
Interviewer: Mr Premier.. what do you think about the state of the roads..surely we need to spend more money on them .....

JBP : Now bbubb nana thats really not the question you should be asking .. so whats really the point is that we dont have enough good cars on the road..and a lot of that is due to the federal Government .. and this shows when you put monkeys in Canberra why should be surprised that we end up having to get paid peanuts .. .we certainly do not get enough from Canberra .. too much government and not enough white shoes.. they need more white shoes in canberra .. have a look at our white shoes we have good white shoes....

So when CE says the early picks are over valued and the point system etc.. ... I actually see that as a comment on what people are willing to pay.. not about the inherent value of having early choices... as one girl I used to know used to say.. I heard what you were saying but that doesn't mean I was listening...