Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[geoffjennings79]

We could drag this Perryman/de Burgh stuff out all summer, possibly better than boredom on here occasionally turning Dogs posters against each other.

So which BF poster is the "hooded old man at the rudder"...?!

 

[_Cerberus_]

Half way through the de-listed free agency window, and little movement across the league in general. And no rumors from our end. It is clear most clubs want to try and load up on, and hit this draft. Looks like we will take a draft first approach and probably leave one spot open for someone to train with us during the preseason. Happy to hit the draft. Though still hoping that we can get another pick inside the sweet spot without giving up too much.

 

[cecil]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

 

[bobs head soup]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I agree with this, reckon Anthony Scott is the one.

Has provided us with pretty good value for a supplemental pick up, but feel like his opportunities now look slim to none as a 30 year old next year.

Has a good career outside of footy, so a further concussion impacting his future seems an unnecessary risk.

Moving on seems the smart play allround.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I'd go Gardner in that spot.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

 

[cecil]

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

Yes of course, but Duryea, Libba, L Jones and JJ are all very likely to retire. That is without cutting depth players. In a shallow draft you probably don't want many more than 4 picks.

 

[bobs head soup]

Yes of course, but Duryea, Libba, L Jones and JJ are all very likely to retire. That is without cutting depth players. In a shallow draft you probably don't want many more than 4 picks.

Could be we go hard in the trade period next year. Feels like we are clearing salary cap.

 

[Ash1337]

I think a FA next year will be found and hopefully XOH still decides to come to dogs. 2 in.

As for going out nearly half are rookie listed. Poulter Baker Duyrea. Probably a good time to refresh the rookie list next season. As for the rest Only Jones is in the firing line and maybe Coffield if he cant overcome his injuries. So You're looking at JJ, Libba & LJones retiring and Arty scott & Coff delist. 6 senior and 3 rookies. Bring in 3 draft trade/fa/dfa 3 main and rookie 3. It's not as bad as it looks.

 

[Dogs Rule]

You'll friggin hate this mindless speculative garbage but if I subjected myself to it then you should too.

"I don't want this to get misconstrued...."

Yes, yes you do Sam McClure.

McClure - a skid mark on the threadbare jocks of the media.

The definition of a muckraking bull**** artist. Campaigner of the highest order who clearly only got to where he has through nepotism and brown nosing. Would help if he got one call right at some stage.

I mean seriously does anyone honestly believe Bont is going anywhere? Seriously? These crap thought bubbles where hacks feel they have to justify their own existence are everything that's wrong with the saturation media coverage of the game today.

 

[stefoid]

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

In that list spot we could have a) a player that ideally we never have to play, or b) a player that ideally develops into a decent best 22 player?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

In that list spot we could have a) a player that ideally we never have to play, or b) a player that ideally develops into a decent best 22 player?

I think you're overestimating upside of the potential career value of whatever player we add to the list that happens to be the last player on the list, either way.

That kind of wishful thinking that was more prominent in the sort of 2000-2015 era of list management has slowly disappeared, the league trends and the good teams are using those list spots as lower-upside role players or culture recruits, understanding that if there's a 50+% chance that any player you list plays fewer than 10 career games or whatever, their ability to be a good clubman or understand team structures in slotting into those games are much more meaningful than the rare chance (although it does exist) of landing a future good long-term player from your last list spot.

It does happen, and I'm not saying we should avoid it, but suggesting that it doesn't happen enough is wrong - all evidence suggests teams do it too much, and they're trending away from it over time. It probably hasn't equalised just yet.

Take e.g. the 2007 first 10 picks of the rookie draft:



Given how many of them played either 0 games or were only given games "to take a look at them" (as opposed to be expected to play at least productively in a role that a mature ager is expected to when picked), it is entirely possible that any of these teams could have had more success in the subsequent years had they not attempted to draft the high-updside, "develops into a decent best 22 player" rather than picking a mature ager, delisted free agent etc. that have stepped in and played a role, rather than picking their alternative worse option from the VFL.

 

[stefoid]

I think you're overestimating upside of the potential career value of whatever player we add to the list that happens to be the last player on the list, either way.

That kind of wishful thinking that was more prominent in the sort of 2000-2015 era of list management has slowly disappeared, the league trends and the good teams are using those list spots as lower-upside role players or culture recruits, understanding that if there's a 50+% chance that any player you list plays fewer than 10 career games or whatever, their ability to be a good clubman or understand team structures in slotting into those games are much more meaningful than the rare chance (although it does exist) of landing a future good long-term player from your last list spot.

It does happen, and I'm not saying we should avoid it, but suggesting that it doesn't happen enough is wrong - all evidence suggests teams do it too much, and they're trending away from it over time. It probably hasn't equalised just yet.

Take e.g. the 2007 first 10 picks of the rookie draft:

View attachment 2159420

Given how many of them played either 0 games or were only given games "to take a look at them" (as opposed to be expected to play at least productively in a role that a mature ager is expected to when picked), it is entirely possible that any of these teams could have had more success in the subsequent years had they not attempted to draft the high-updside, "develops into a decent best 22 player" rather than picking a mature ager, delisted free agent etc. that have stepped in and played a role, rather than picking their alternative worse option from the VFL.

low picks and rookies are a lottery and you don't buy a ticket, you can't win. looking at the top 10 isn't that useful. order them by games played instead. 2007 was a poor year. but 2008 went alright, with 12 players going 100+ games.

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

our 2016 premiership side had 6 rookies (Boyd, morris, JJ, Dal, Picken, Roberts) , a couple of late picks (dicko, wood) and 2 'rejects'. (Biggs, Hamling)

If baker plays 20 nondescript games for us over 4 years, that's 2 tickets in the lottery. multiply that by 3 or 4 similar players clogging the list and it becomes statistically significant.

Club	Signing	Player	Age	Height	Weight	Original Club	Grade	Games↥	Goals	Coaches	Brownlow	Awards
	47	Hawthorn		Luke Breust	18yr	184cm	84kg	Temora/NSW-ACT U18	A	300	549	212	29	AA: 2014, 2018; AA40: 2023; Prem: 2013, 2014, 2015
	19	Fremantle		Matt de Boer	18yr	186cm	85kg	Swanbourne JFC/Claremont	B	223 (138)	83	37	3
	30	Western Bulldogs		Liam Picken	22yr	183cm	80kg	Hamilton FC/North Ballarat U18/Williamstown	B	198	87	84	11	Prem: 2016
	6	Carlton		Jeff Garlett	19yr	180cm	75kg	Burracoppin/Trinity College (WA)/Swan Districts	B+	185 (107)	321	85	10	AA40: 2017
	10	Adelaide		Ricky Henderson	20yr	188cm	91kg	Trentham/North Ballarat	B+	159 (90)	79	76	19
	27	Collingwood		Jarryd Blair	18yr	174cm	81kg	Wonthaggi/Gippsland U18	B	157	121	40	7	Prem: 2010
	13	St Kilda		Zac Dawson	22yr	197cm	93kg	Doutta Stars/PEGS/Calder U18	C+	152 (63)	7	8	0
	8	Richmond		Robin Nahas	21yr	176cm	75kg	Oakleigh Dragons JFC/Salesian College/Oakleigh U18/Port Melbourne	B	117 (83)	135	37	6
	69	Collingwood	Unregistered	Lachlan Keeffe	18yr	204cm	102kg	Marist College Ashgrove/Old Trinity	C+	116 (40)	19	5	0
	74	Fremantle		Greg Broughton	22yr	189cm	82kg	Kingsley JFC/Noranda/Subiaco	B+	110 (68)	19	66	6
	57	Sydney	International	Mike Pyke	24yr	201cm	104kg	Canada	C+	110	48	4	0	Prem: 2012
	48	Fremantle		Clancee Pearce	18yr	182cm	89kg	Noranda/Guildford Grammar/Swan Districts	B	100	36	28	9

 

[threenewpadlocks]

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

our 2016 premiership side had 6 rookies (Boyd, morris, JJ, Dal, Picken, Roberts) , a couple of late picks (dicko, wood) and 2 'rejects'. (Biggs, Hamling)

It's a mistake to look at our squad in isolation and not what correlates generally to good players and therefore wins and therefore premierships.

Brisbane's 2024 flag team for instance

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

From a previously much larger pool of players
In the history of the rookie draft the median games played is essentially 10 games. You're a 50% chance of never making it to 10 games.

If baker plays 20 nondescript games for us over 4 years, that's 2 tickets in the lottery. multiply that by 3 or 4 similar players clogging the list and it becomes statistically significant.

But speaking econometrically this isn't the right way of phrasing it. List spots are a finite resource. We can only ever give up a certain amount of them as a time. It's not a matter of buying a lottery ticket, it's a matter of distributing the capacity to only offer a maximum number of list spots in the most efficient manner. You have to consider the cost of a losing lottery ticket as part of that as well, and every 18 year old who gets drafted through the rookie draft and plays 0 games (Rypstra etc.) is effectively a "loss" relative to the expectation of 10 games from that list spot or whatever. Those losses accumulate every time you buy a lottery ticket.

I'm not denying that some good players have come from the rookie draft and you miss out on them. Just that historically speaking, teams have erred too much on the side of recruiting players who never make it to 10 games (literally half the players). The equilibrium point should be recruiting non-draftee type players and getting either state leaguers or previously listed AFL players more often, because those types of players in the rookie draft have had a higher median games played than the 18 year olds.

Teams are learning this because the last 10 years has seen teams recruit fewer and fewer 18 year olds with their latest draft picks or rookie draft picks, and more mature agers and players who are 20+ year in age.

To suggest that we should buy a lottery ticket is to suggest that that trend has already gone too far, and swung back past the equilbirum point. I disagree. By drafting mature agers in Gowers, Gardner, Sweet, Scott, McNeil (was 19 so a bit of both), McComb, Baker, Poulter, and Bramble, we have consistently found players who were good enough to get 10+ AFL games, having careers that were much better than the 50% expectation that a 18 year old never gets to 200 games. Sure, none of them are every likely to be a B+ grader, but having the accumulation of value in all of those players on the margins over the player that would have otherwise gotten a game, is the equivalent of nailing that one 200 gamer over their career. We got one year of Gardner playing well. We got one year of Scott playing well etc. etc.

 

[DueWest]

To suggest that we should buy a lottery ticket is to suggest that that trend has already gone too far, and swung back past the equilbirum point. I disagree. By drafting mature agers in Gowers, Gardner, Sweet, Scott, McNeil (was 19 so a bit of both), McComb, Baker, Poulter, and Bramble, we have consistently found players who were good enough to get 10+ AFL games, having careers that were much better than the 50% expectation that a 18 year old never gets to 200 games. Sure, none of them are every likely to be a B+ grader, but having the accumulation of value in all of those players on the margins over the player that would have otherwise gotten a game, is the equivalent of nailing that one 200 gamer over their career. We got one year of Gardner playing well. We got one year of Scott playing well etc. etc.

Quality over quantity would rather one player good enough to play 200 than 9 list cloggers playing 20 games each.

All of them have played a few good games but apart from Bramble , Scott and a few games from McNeil they are a very average lot who done really improve the side into a top 4 contender

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Quality over quantity would rather one player good enough to play 200 than 9 list cloggers playing 20 games each.

All of them have played a few good games but apart from Bramble , Scott and a few games from McNeil they are a very average lot who done really improve the side into a top 4 contender

I think you're missing the point

If you have 9 different "list cloggers" than each individually have 1 positive-value season, than that's 9 positive-value seasons out of that strategy

If you draft a bunch of 18 year olds in which 8 of them play 0 AFL games and one plays 200 games, you're getting the same 9 positive-value seasons just out of one player.

It should be without controversy that Billy Gowers' 2018 season was a positive value one for us (relative to a fringe talent for that season)

It should be without controversy that Lachie Bramble's 2024 season was a positive value one for us (relative to a fringe talent for that season in and out of the team)

It can even be argued by virtue of being picked for 18 games, even if the on-field output of them was poor, that Robbie McComb still played better than the 18 games that an 18 year old would have played out of necessity (such as the players we picked in the second half of 2012 when we had a lot of injuries, like a Danyle Pearce or whatever).

Etc. etc.

"a few very average games" is still fundamentally more valuable football in the comparison of the fact that some player plays a grand total of 0 games, and was considered for selection by another player, who presumably wasn't that good.

There's essentially a few truisms in picking a team

You have to select 22 (now 23) players. That's a limited number of game spots.

You have 42 (formerly 44) list spots to be able to select players from. That's a limited number of game spots.

In some occasions, you can use the 19 list spots not selected for a given game in order to develop players, like an 18 year old, whose development and tail end of their future output (a 200 gamer) is more likely. But it's also more likely that they are a 0 gamer too, which isn't weighted in enough.

In some occasions, you can use the 19 list spots to get a bunch of players to battle against each other to demand a list spot immediately, thus the difference between (say) 19 and 17 players battling for a list spot as a mature ager means the player that wins that battle is more likely to be a better player than if fewer players were battling for it.

Both have merit in helping you win future games of football, but I am of the few that the first of these "on some occasions" has been oversubscribed by teams, and they would more likely win future games of football by strengthen their list depth and therefore by extension the quality of the 22nd selected player in an AFL game, rather than the fact that they reduce the chance of picking a 200 gamer from 10% to 2% (that the mature ager could still be a 200 gamer) or whatever.

This is oversimplifying it of course, the barriers between list clogger, positive value, neutral value, negative value, turning over players, salary cap considerations, etc. I get that all of it has to be looked at holistically but at least simplifying it this way help the conception of it.

I'm not saying there isn't an equilibrium point. If over time, more teams draft mature agers/former AFL players, and fewer 18 year olds, then the talent pool staying the same quality means that of course the 18 year old passed over by other clubs to recruit a mature ager means you're getting the 2nd best mature ager and the 1st best 18 year old, not the other way around, so sometimes balancing up the two it makes sense to recruit the 18 year old.

Just that as we continue to pick out the eyes of good mature age recruits, we clearly haven't hit that point yet. Until we largely fail with a few mature agers (which we clearly haven't), what's the argument with not continuing with this strategy?

 

[stefoid]

Quality over quantity would rather one player good enough to play 200 than 9 list cloggers playing 20 games each.

All of them have played a few good games but apart from Bramble , Scott and a few games from McNeil they are a very average lot who done really improve the side into a top 4 contender

yeah, I was just going to say this. The goal is ultimately to win premierships, and for that you need to maximise the quality of the best 22, not the quality of the list as a whole. You need to judge the list management policy on the best 22 players it is able to produce, not the quality of each player on the entire list.

My real issue is not with depth options vs. development options per se, its the number of players on the list who have stagnated at sub-par levels, whether they are depth or development. Whatever their role, if a player isnt on an upward trajectory towards best-22, they need to give up their spot pretty quickly to someone who is.

Bramble is such a player. Baker isnt.

I have no issues at all about trying and flicking rypstra so quickly. That policy is far more likely to produce a best 22 player than keeping a stagnant mature ager on the list for 6 years.

I realize you need depth, but depth comes in many flavours. Lobb is decent and versatile -> great depth. If we have a few more Lobbs on the list that can play decently in multiple positions, we can dedicate the rest of the list to developing players that may throw up a star now and then.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Bramble is such a player. Baker isnt.

I'm not convinced Baker is significantly less likely to play another 100 games than a random rookie pick.

At least the extent that he's less likely is not so significant to overcome the fact that you're probably delisting the 18 year old and Baker in a year or two anyway, and within that next year or two, Baker will likely perform better in the small number of games he's called upon to play.

we can dedicate the rest of the list to developing players that may throw up a star now and then.

But you can't just handwave this statement and make assumptions. We can measure the success rate in the past of these kinds of moves and let this inform us into better decisions for the future. Of course that a star gets thrown up now and again, and yes, you're more likely to get a future 100 gamer drafting an 18 year old in the rookie draft than drafting a 23 year old in the rookie draft.

However, you're also far more likely to get a 0 gamer. You can't suggest one without looking at the other.

You can then average out the two to look at average added value into the future.

We can look at the past list management decisions of the league as a whole. This suggests that far too many of the final 3-5 list spots on a given list has been dedicated to a player that never plays a game, when if a non-teenager is recruited in that final 3-5 list spots (or the likes of retaining Baker being the same principle as recruiting his equivalent from another club), they will contribute positive value.

For instance, in the 2015-17 rookie drafts, 55 19+ year olds were drafted and have played an average of 32 games each while 48 18 year olds have played an average of 25 games each. I can do more detailed analysis in terms of quality of play or more years, but I think you can see the logic of my trend. Yes, Dan Houston, an All-Australian was recruited out of that group of players. But so was Trent Mynott, Angus Styles, Callan England, Kym Lebois, Lachlan Filipovic, Luke Strnadica, Oscar Junker, Liam Mackie, Jesse Glass-McCasker, the list goes on. All played 0 AFL games.

On the other hand, the 15 oldest players across those rookie drafts all, yes all played AFL games, ie more than 0, for that above. I get that this includes the likes of Brett Eddy who played 3 games. But Port also drafted Cameron Hewett, who also played 0 games, and was 18, and we can assume that Brett Eddy's 3 games were better than Cameron Hewett's games had he would have played, because Eddy was selected ahead of Hewett (or equivalent) for those games.

You can argue, do we win the flag without Jason Johannisen? I suppose not. But I can also argue, do we also win the flag without Jed Adcock, who was essentially guaranteed to be a capable AFL footballer above what other 18 year old we could have drafted that year? I can also argue no.

I get that as more teams draft more mature agers the quality of the 18 year olds (as you have your preference) increases, and the quality of the mature agers (as you lose a preference) disappears. It just doesn't appear that we get to that point yet.

 

[stefoid]

I'm not convinced Baker is significantly less likely to play another 100 games than a random rookie pick.

At least the extent that he's less likely is not so significant to overcome the fact that you're probably delisting the 18 year old and Baker in a year or two anyway, and within that next year or two, Baker will likely perform better in the small number of games he's called upon to play.


But you can't just handwave this statement and make assumptions. We can measure the success rate in the past of these kinds of moves and let this inform us into better decisions for the future. Of course that a star gets thrown up now and again, and yes, you're more likely to get a future 100 gamer drafting an 18 year old in the rookie draft than drafting a 23 year old in the rookie draft.

However, you're also far more likely to get a 0 gamer. You can't suggest one without looking at the other.

You can then average out the two to look at average added value into the future.

We can look at the past list management decisions of the league as a whole. This suggests that far too many of the final 3-5 list spots on a given list has been dedicated to a player that never plays a game, when if a non-teenager is recruited in that final 3-5 list spots (or the likes of retaining Baker being the same principle as recruiting his equivalent from another club), they will contribute positive value.

For instance, in the 2015-17 rookie drafts, 55 19+ year olds were drafted and have played an average of 32 games each while 48 18 year olds have played an average of 25 games each. I can do more detailed analysis in terms of quality of play or more years, but I think you can see the logic of my trend. Yes, Dan Houston, an All-Australian was recruited out of that group of players. But so was Trent Mynott, Angus Styles, Callan England, Kym Lebois, Lachlan Filipovic, Luke Strnadica, Oscar Junker, Liam Mackie, Jesse Glass-McCasker, the list goes on. All played 0 AFL games.

On the other hand, the 15 oldest players across those rookie drafts all, yes all played AFL games, ie more than 0, for that above. I get that this includes the likes of Brett Eddy who played 3 games. But Port also drafted Cameron Hewett, who also played 0 games, and was 18, and we can assume that Brett Eddy's 3 games were better than Cameron Hewett's games had he would have played, because Eddy was selected ahead of Hewett (or equivalent) for those games.

You can argue, do we win the flag without Jason Johannisen? I suppose not. But I can also argue, do we also win the flag without Jed Adcock, who was essentially guaranteed to be a capable AFL footballer above what other 18 year old we could have drafted that year? I can also argue no.

I get that as more teams draft more mature agers the quality of the 18 year olds (as you have your preference) increases, and the quality of the mature agers (as you lose a preference) disappears. It just doesn't appear that we get to that point yet.

Youre still measuring 'success' by if a player plays 2 dozen games vs a failure if they play 0. They are both failures - just by varying degrees. I guess its easy to quantify games played but its nigh impossible to quantify missed opportunities.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They are both failures - just by varying degrees.

But then you're more likely to win a flag if you have a lesser failure than a bigger failure.

I guess its easy to quantify games played but its nigh impossible to quantify missed opportunities.

But games played is a proxy for missed opportunities. Dan Houston's game tallies is in that average of 18 year old players. It still doesn't drag up the average games played of all 18 year olds as a collective despite his inclusion in it.

And by virtue of the fact that 50 18 year olds were drafted in 2015-17 and we only got one All-Austrlaian out of those 50 players (Houston), we can roughly quantify the the cost of missed opportunities as a 2% chance of getting an All-Australian. If we say there's a 1% chance of a 19+ year old rookie selection being a future All-Australian, the quality of output in terms of that difference in 1% to 2% does not line up with the difference in quality between (e.g.) Jed Adcock's 7 actual games and Luke Goetz actual 0 games, for instance (or the similar percentages they represent).

 

[stefoid]

But then you're more likely to win a flag if you have a lesser failure than a bigger failure.

But games played is a proxy for missed opportunities. Dan Houston's game tallies is in that average of 18 year old players. It still doesn't drag up the average games played of all 18 year olds as a collective despite his inclusion in it.

And by virtue of the fact that 50 18 year olds were drafted in 2015-17 and we only got one All-Austrlaian out of those 50 players (Houston), we can roughly quantify the the cost of missed opportunities as a 2% chance of getting an All-Australian. If we say there's a 1% chance of a 19+ year old rookie selection being a future All-Australian, the quality of output in terms of that difference in 1% to 2% does not line up with the difference in quality between (e.g.) Jed Adcock's 7 actual games and Luke Goetz actual 0 games, for instance (or the similar percentages they represent).

Youre setting the bar pretty high - AA player or not worth it?

Setting it at 100 games - thats not a fringe player, thats someone who was a lock for best 22 for a number of years.

The aim of the entire list is to make the best 22, remember, not to maximise the number of players with more than 0 games. that doesnt count for anything

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Youre setting the bar pretty high - AA player or not worth it?

Setting it at 100 games - thats not a fringe player, thats someone who was a lock for best 22 for a number of years.

I'm just using a AA as an example. If anything, shortening it to 100 game actually proves my point more.

5 of the 48 players drafted in the 2015-2017 rookie drafts have made it to 100 games, though some like Draper, Amartey and Chol will get there (note not counting Mitch Hinge and Stengle because they were delisted Brisbane and their subsequent success is in the latter, mature age recruit category). So 8/48 = 17%

On the other hand, of the 55 19+ year olds drafted in the 2015-17 rookie drafts, 9 have played 100 games, of which another one (Banfield) will play 100th. So 18%.

And the quality of output is comparable. Sure Houston is an AA player, but mature agers drafted include Papley, Marshall, Baker, Mihocek and McDonald-Tipungwuti, all players who have gotten 10+ career Brownlow votes. 5/10 of the 100 games. Yet only 2 of the players have gotten 10+ Brownlow votes - Houston and Zurhaar. Draper, Amartey and Chol may get there, but no-one else will.

Of course, this is only half the equation.

So among 100 gamers the groups are roughly as good as each other.

But among most of the players who weren't 100 gamers, there is clearly far more value from drafting a mature ager.

27 of the 40 non-100 gamers of the 18 year olds played 3 or fewer games. (57%).
However, only 23 of the 45 non-100 gamers of the 19+ year olds played 3 or fewer games (51%).

I can extend the analysis out to other years but you run into expansion draft issues, and pre-expansion teams different rules, and more recent it's a bit unfair as it's hard to see careers play out. But you can adjust for these factors spending more time on more analysis, and the point I'm making would still hold true.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

For people who think a "flier" 18 year old is more likely to be a jet and that a mature/over-ager isn't (like how we recruited Gallagher, Vandermeer and McNeil as over-ager 19 year olds), lets look at this humorous post:

Draft Watcher - Knightmare's 2015 Draft Almanac

I'm interviewing Jacob Weitering tomorrow night, anyone want any questions answered? Can you ask him who he supported growing up, where he'd like to go and how he feels about possibly moving interstate?

www.bigfooty.com

Knightmare believed that Papley wasn't an AFL talent because he was playing TAC Cup as an over-ager 19 year old.

This isn't to say that a flier 18 year old isn't more likely to be an All-Australian player, at the fat end of the tail (this can be clue with athletic traits that need to be developed, like an Aaron Sandilands

Aaron Sandilands

Age

41

Ht

211cm

Wt

118kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.7

3star

K

4.4

2star

HB

8.2

5star

CL

3.3

5star

HO

31.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

5.4

2star

K

3.4

2star

HB

2.0

2star

HO

13.6

5star

or whatever).

But you cannot completely dismiss the idea of a Papley (or McNeil) type ever also becoming an All-Australian down to zero at the time that we draft them.

And that difference between slightly-more than zero for a 19 year old Papley and that slightly-more than-slightly more than zero for the Houston type is not worth the difference than the proven capability of a mature ager to be a 50% chance to be a proven capable ability to offer between 4-50 games of temporary value, vs the fact that a 18 year old is only a 40% chance of reaching that. The mature ager is a 40% chance to not contribute meaningfully to AFL level, the 18 year old is a 55% chance. That 10-15% difference does matter in the aggregate over a lot of list spots, as much as the 1% difference between the 1% and 2% chance you find an all Australian either with a mature ager or an 18 year old, with a rookie draft spot.

See this Microsoft Paint inspired example:

The issue is that the weight of "fat end of the tail" is given too much importance. The much higher probability of getting a solid 25 games of positive value is not given enough valuation, as was the case with (e.g.) us and Gowers, who yes, it's hard to believe, contributed to making it more likely that we would win the 2018 flag in the absence of us not drafting him at all for that year, with that increase in 2018 flag possibility a greater increase than the potential of a 2024 flag increase possibility by the 5% chance we would have found a player in the 2017 rookie draft still on our list in 2024). Both can contribute to winning premierships, but the past measurement of just how likely each are has given too probability to the fat end of the tail (the belief is that the blue line at the end is higher than it is in reality, and the red line at the end is lower than it is in reality, and that the blue line at the start is lower than it is in reality).

 

[House_of_Dahl]

 

[Dogs Rule]