Draft success rates?

[Dry Rot]

Inspired by this post:


The '03 draft was an absolute shocker.

Just look at the top 10...apart from Cooney and perhaps Mclean, they have all gone well below expectations.

I was wondering what success rates various draft picks have eg what percentage of picks 1-10, 11-20 etc go on to become at least a good player?

Just thinking generally, not about particular or good or bad drafts.

[The Coon Dog]

Inspired by this post:



I was wondering what success rates various draft picks have eg what percentage of picks 1-10, 11-20 etc go on to become at least a good player?

Just thinking generally, not about particular or good or bad drafts.

Why not research it then?

[Dry Rot]

Why not research it then?

Hopefully some more knowledgeable folk here will have a rough idea.

I'm not expecting anyone to spend a day going through the drafts of the last ten years, including me.

Are you volunteering?

[GVGjr]

Inspired by this post:

I was wondering what success rates various draft picks have eg what percentage of picks 1-10, 11-20 etc go on to become at least a good player?

Just thinking generally, not about particular or good or bad drafts.

There are good years and bad ones. That draft wasn't bad at all.

Cooney has done very well.
Walker aside from a few injuries is also performing well.
Sylvia has had some off field distractions but he is still very talented.
Ray hasn't lived up to expectations
McLean has been very good on the field but average to poor away from it.

The facts are that you will get more hits with the early picks than you will with the low. The numbers are starting to prove that.

Have a look at the guys drafted last early year.

Kreuzer, Cotchin, Morton and Palmer have all been very good as well as the guys drafted later in the first round like Rioli, Ebert and Harry Taylor.

There is no exact science to this but teams generally get far better results from the early selections.

[Dry Rot]

There are good years and bad ones. That draft wasn't bad at all.

Cooney has done very well.
Walker aside from a few injuries is also performing well.
Sylvia has had some off field distractions but he is still very talented.
Ray hasn't lived up to expectations
McLean has been very good on the field but average to poor away from it.

The facts are that you will get more hits with the early picks than you will with the low. The numbers are starting to prove that.

Have a look at the guys drafted last early year.

Kreuzer, Cotchin, Morton and Palmer have all been very good as well as the guys drafted later in the first round like Rioli, Ebert and Harry Taylor.

There is no exact science to this but teams generally get far better results from the early selections.

Thanks.

Would it be something like roughly 60% for picks 1-20, 40% for picks 21-40 and 20% for picks 41+?

[GVGjr]

Thanks.

Would it be something like roughly 60% for picks 1-20, 40% for picks 21-40 and 20% for picks 41+?

I don't know the answers but the thing is that the attitude changes later in the draft. Some clubs go for long term prospects which is very hit and miss whilst others will go for more needs based or mature types that are more like to play some part in the next few seasons but might never reach 100 games.

It all depends what is regarded as a successful selection.

[Dry Rot]

I don't know the answers but the thing is that the attitude changes later in the draft. Some clubs go for long term prospects which is very hit and miss whilst others will go for more needs based or mature types that are more like to play some part in the next few seasons but might never reach 100 games.

It all depends what is regarded as a successful selection.

Fair enough - I suppose I was excluding mature types like King going to the Saints.

Re a successful selection, I'm thinking of say playing 150 games and/or at least say Hargrave quality.

Reason I'm asking is re list management and the upcoming draft eg yes, we have developing talls on our books like Boumann, Mulligan, Grant, Tiller, Wight and Williams and my best guess is that statistically about a third will make it.

[Happy Days]

Don't think i've been cited as an inspiration before :D

[LostDoggy]

I think there was a stat that went around about a few months back that said the draft percent the a player would achieve over 250 games was like 2%.

Dont quote me on that.

[GVGjr]

Fair enough - I suppose I was excluding mature types like King going to the Saints.

Re a successful selection, I'm thinking of say playing 150 games and/or at least say Hargrave quality.

Reason I'm asking is re list management and the upcoming draft eg yes, we have developing talls on our books like Boumann, Mulligan, Grant, Tiller, Wight and Williams and my best guess is that statistically about a third will make it.

I know what you are getting at but it's still not that simple.

5 years ago we had a coach and two assistants and a part timer looking after Werribee. We probably also had one or two very much part time specialists as well.
Now we have a football manager, a coach, three assistants, a couple of specialist coaches, a coach of Williamstown and a development coach.
On top of that we now have an incredible facility that will assist on the science of managing and training the team.

Given this huge increase and investment on the technical side of football we will soon see some positive changes with the success rate of players we draft in making the grade.
There has already been a change in attitude from guys like Reid and Boumann because we have a development coach who is constantly in their ear before, during and after every game. In years gone by guys like Brad Murphy who challenged and tested the authority were simply shunted back into the VFL and pretty much forgotten about because we just didn't have the time and resources to micro manage him.

We will be able to identify those who will not make the grade earlier and we will be able to develop the other guys quicker as well.

If you could see the difference in guys like Boumann, Wood and Reid from when they first arrived at the club and how they are performing now you would see what this increased investment should be able to deliver.

We can get caught up in the stats of drafts but at the end of the day simply speaking it would be far better for players to be drafted by us now than what it was 6 or 7 years ago.

[Twodogs]

It all depends what is regarded as a successful selection.




You'd expect at least 10% of your first round picks to still be at the club 5 years on. The worst thing for me is that, for one reason and another, an uncommon amount of our first round picks have moved on before the end of their playing days.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I've only looked at the top 10's from 1998-2004 - 70 players. It's too early to tell with the more recent ones, I couldn't be stuffed going back earlier than 98.

I've rated them as:

'A' graders, the stars of the game - 8 in total. Pavlich, Corey, Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Bartel, Cooney & Franklin.

An average of only just better than 1 a season. Some years had none (98, 2002), 2001 had 3. Roughead, Griffen and Deledio might make 2004 the best crop ever - maybe.

'B' graders, good solid AFL players - 21

'C' stiill there but spent time in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL this year - 12

'D' graders, still in the system but with other clubs - 12

'E' graders, managed a few games but now delisted - 15 (I included Pettifer in this list since he was given the flick last week, and he was a major hack)

'F' graders, total hacks who got delisted before they ever played a game - 2


The %'s (rounded).

Star - 10%
Good player - 30%
Average/traded player - 35%
Hack - 25%

Statistically you have twice as much chance of getting a dud with a top 10 pick as you have getting a star!


Our round 1 picks since Scott Clayton took over until 2004

Stars - 1/8 (12%) - Cooney
Good players - 2/8 (25%) - Murphy, Griffen
Average/traded - 4/8 (50%) - Williams, Ray, Power, McMahon
Hack - 1/8 (12%) Walsh.

Statistically Clayton has been marginally better than the competition average, although if Williams comes good he'll be in front.

[LostDoggy]

Thanks SS.
Better than TCD's stats but he'd be able to tell you what they all eat for breakfast on game days.

[Dry Rot]

I know what you are getting at but it's still not that simple.

5 years ago we had a coach and two assistants and a part timer looking after Werribee. We probably also had one or two very much part time specialists as well.
Now we have a football manager, a coach, three assistants, a couple of specialist coaches, a coach of Williamstown and a development coach.
On top of that we now have an incredible facility that will assist on the science of managing and training the team.

Given this huge increase and investment on the technical side of football we will soon see some positive changes with the success rate of players we draft in making the grade.
There has already been a change in attitude from guys like Reid and Boumann because we have a development coach who is constantly in their ear before, during and after every game. In years gone by guys like Brad Murphy who challenged and tested the authority were simply shunted back into the VFL and pretty much forgotten about because we just didn't have the time and resources to micro manage him.

We will be able to identify those who will not make the grade earlier and we will be able to develop the other guys quicker as well.

If you could see the difference in guys like Boumann, Wood and Reid from when they first arrived at the club and how they are performing now you would see what this increased investment should be able to deliver.

We can get caught up in the stats of drafts but at the end of the day simply speaking it would be far better for players to be drafted by us now than what it was 6 or 7 years ago.

Thanks for that, but wouldn't powerhouse clubs have had this infrasructure? Are we ahead or catching up?

[GVGjr]

Thanks for that, but wouldn't powerhouse clubs have had this infrasructure? Are we ahead or catching up?

We have probably just caught up and passed just about every other club. Training facilities vary dramatically amongst the clubs. We were probably 15th or 16th standard wise and now we would be 1 or 2. It will make a big difference.

[Dry Rot]

I've only looked at the top 10's from 1998-2004 - 70 players. It's too early to tell with the more recent ones, I couldn't be stuffed going back earlier than 98.


The %'s (rounded).

Star - 10%
Good player - 30%
Average/traded player - 35%
Hack - 25%

Statistically you have twice as much chance of getting a dud with a top 10 pick as you have getting a star!


Our round 1 picks since Scott Clayton took over until 2004

Stars - 1/8 (12%) - Cooney
Good players - 2/8 (25%) - Murphy, Griffen
Average/traded - 4/8 (50%) - Williams, Ray, Power, McMahon
Hack - 1/8 (12%) Walsh.

Statistically Clayton has been marginally better than the competition average, although if Williams comes good he'll be in front.

Great work SS. Thanks.

So about 40% of picks 1-10 are good - stars and 60% are average - duds among the top picks of recruiters. Say you get those rates for picks 11 - 20 (you probably wouldn't) and you'd expect that ratio of good (25%) to drop after Pick 20 despite GVGjr's observation about better support.

There have been some list management threads on here and looking into the crystal ball about our youngsters. These stats suggest that like most clubs at best only 25 - 40 % of them will be good players.

What % of your side do you need to be good - star to be a genuine premiership threat?

[Dogs 24/7]

Very interesting thread and for the most part an absorbing read. You have inspired me to put together a review of our playing list.

[Dry Rot]

We have probably just caught up and passed just about every other club. Training facilities vary dramatically amongst the clubs. We were probably 15th or 16th standard wise and now we would be 1 or 2. It will make a big difference.

Would you agree that it would make the biggest difference with the less than stellar recruits? (pick wise)

May help SS's stats to more closely follow through with later picks eg more likely to closer to 25% of later picks to be good players (say 15 - 20%) given there less likely talent.

[MrMahatma]

I know what you are getting at but it's still not that simple.

5 years ago we had a coach and two assistants and a part timer looking after Werribee. We probably also had one or two very much part time specialists as well.
Now we have a football manager, a coach, three assistants, a couple of specialist coaches, a coach of Williamstown and a development coach.
On top of that we now have an incredible facility that will assist on the science of managing and training the team.

Given this huge increase and investment on the technical side of football we will soon see some positive changes with the success rate of players we draft in making the grade.
There has already been a change in attitude from guys like Reid and Boumann because we have a development coach who is constantly in their ear before, during and after every game. In years gone by guys like Brad Murphy who challenged and tested the authority were simply shunted back into the VFL and pretty much forgotten about because we just didn't have the time and resources to micro manage him.

We will be able to identify those who will not make the grade earlier and we will be able to develop the other guys quicker as well.

If you could see the difference in guys like Boumann, Wood and Reid from when they first arrived at the club and how they are performing now you would see what this increased investment should be able to deliver.

We can get caught up in the stats of drafts but at the end of the day simply speaking it would be far better for players to be drafted by us now than what it was 6 or 7 years ago.
Interesting. Perhaps why all the guys who do make it, or have so far, with us have been 'nice guys', no super confident cocky pricks that everyone hates, except their supporters, cause they're so damn good.

We need some swagger - and it usually comes from hard to manage sorts...

[GVGjr]

Would you agree that it would make the biggest difference with the less than stellar recruits? (pick wise)

May help SS's stats to more closely follow through with later picks eg more likely to closer to 25% of later picks to be good players (say 15 - 20%) given there less likely talent.

I'm not sure why you are so focused on the stats but I suppose it might fast track some of the lesser lights a bit quicker but it wouldn't mean that there wasn't also some big benefits for even an Adam Cooney when he first arrived at the club.
The fact is that with more coaches, specialist coaches and sports science centre located right in the ELC that this will lift the mark for all the players and identify what players need to do and better what the coaches need to focus on with the individuals. All that must lead to quicker development of the younger guys.

[Mofra]

Was this the sort of thing you were after?

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9715/avgdraft60cb8.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9715/avgdraft60cb8.cd6cc072f2.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=135&i=avgdraft60cb8.gif)

(Please note this only includes drafts up to 2005)

[Dry Rot]

Was this the sort of thing you were after?

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9715/avgdraft60cb8.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9715/avgdraft60cb8.cd6cc072f2.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=135&i=avgdraft60cb8.gif)

(Please note this only includes drafts up to 2005)

Great - thanks for that. Is there a problem with the second link?

Anyone else surprised how iffy early picks are?

[Mofra]

Anyone else surprised how iffy early picks are?
Not if you subscribe to the "pick 6 curse" theory.
We haven't had a great record with picks numbered 4 either

[LostDoggy]

[QUOTE=Sockeye Salmon;54944]I've only looked at the top 10's from 1998-2004 - 70 players. It's too early to tell with the more recent ones, I couldn't be stuffed going back earlier than 98.

I've rated them as:

'A' graders, the stars of the game - 8 in total. Pavlich, Corey, Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Bartel, Cooney & Franklin.

An average of only just better than 1 a season. Some years had none (98, 2002), 2001 had 3. Roughead, Griffen and Deledio might make 2004 the best crop ever - maybe.

Very good post, I believe there is a vacancy out in the western suburbs for a person with your skills SS.

[Twodogs]

[QUOTE=Sockeye Salmon;54944]I've only looked at the top 10's from 1998-2004 - 70 players. It's too early to tell with the more recent ones, I couldn't be stuffed going back earlier than 98.

I've rated them as:

'A' graders, the stars of the game - 8 in total. Pavlich, Corey, Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Bartel, Cooney & Franklin.

An average of only just better than 1 a season. Some years had none (98, 2002), 2001 had 3. Roughead, Griffen and Deledio might make 2004 the best crop ever - maybe.

Very good post, I believe there is a vacancy out in the western suburbs for a person with your skills SS.



SS doesnt like the Western Suburbs...

[1eyedog]

I've only looked at the top 10's from 1998-2004 - 70 players. It's too early to tell with the more recent ones, I couldn't be stuffed going back earlier than 98.

I've rated them as:

'A' graders, the stars of the game - 8 in total. Pavlich, Corey, Riewoldt, Hodge, Judd, Bartel, Cooney & Franklin.

An average of only just better than 1 a season. Some years had none (98, 2002), 2001 had 3. Roughead, Griffen and Deledio might make 2004 the best crop ever - maybe.

'B' graders, good solid AFL players - 21

'C' stiill there but spent time in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL this year - 12

'D' graders, still in the system but with other clubs - 12

'E' graders, managed a few games but now delisted - 15 (I included Pettifer in this list since he was given the flick last week, and he was a major hack)

'F' graders, total hacks who got delisted before they ever played a game - 2


The %'s (rounded).

Star - 10%
Good player - 30%
Average/traded player - 35%
Hack - 25%

Statistically you have twice as much chance of getting a dud with a top 10 pick as you have getting a star!


Our round 1 picks since Scott Clayton took over until 2004

Stars - 1/8 (12%) - Cooney
Good players - 2/8 (25%) - Murphy, Griffen
Average/traded - 4/8 (50%) - Williams, Ray, Power, McMahon
Hack - 1/8 (12%) Walsh.

Statistically Clayton has been marginally better than the competition average, although if Williams comes good he'll be in front.

That's very interesting

[Dancin' Douggy]

I would put Power in the 'Hack' category.

[westdog54]

I would put Power in the 'Hack' category.

If you read SS's post, you'll see that since Power played a fair few games for us and is now at another club he fits the D graders category, which I think is fair enough since his form for the Kangaroos of late has been reasonable.

[Dancin' Douggy]

If you read SS's post, you'll see that since Power played a fair few games for us and is now at another club he fits the D graders category, which I think is fair enough since his form for the Kangaroos of late has been reasonable.

Fair enough

[Sockeye Salmon]

[QUOTE=Esranit;55056]



SS doesnt like the Western Suburbs...

I try not to venture over the Westgate if I can help it...



...although I might be in the vicinity around 10am tomorrow, it's time to visit Graham Campbell Ferrum I think.