Prompted by the many discussion's on our drafting, I did some analysis of our actual performance, and have posted the results here

http://www.affl.net.au

Feel free to discuss! And if you notice any errors/issues with the data, please let me know and I'll get them fixed.

My Executive summary is

National Draft

Overall, our trading is average. We’ve done ok, fairly much just on the AFL average. What the figures do show though is our propensity to trade away 2nd and 3rd round draft picks.

As detailed in the following pages, Rounds 1-3 is where the bulk of AFL players are found and trading out of these picks puts us behind the 8 ball.

For example, since 1999, we have had 30 picks in rd 1-3, ranked 15th / 16, just in front of Sydney (and of course excluding GWS and GCS). By contrast, Geelong have had 51 and with players in the first 3 rds playing on average 50 AFL games, we are a massive 1000 games behind Geelong.

And it hasn’t improved recently either. Since 2007 we have had 12 picks in rounds 1-3, ranked 17th and have actually had less than GWS! Geelong and Fremantle have had 21 and 19 to be ranked 1 and 2.

Early draft picks are simply too precious to trade and we should stop trading them away

Rookie Draft

We are doing well here and have had some big wins with recent examples of Thornton, Carrazzo, Garlett, Tuohy and the promising Bell and Casboult

Trades

Here we are doing well, in the black to the tune of 325 games. Yes there have been some that have hurt, but overall, we have done quite well.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

great work

Wow!

That's a seriously awesomely large undertaking.

I haven't had a chance to look right through the tables but when comparing drafts against each other do you factor the length of time since each draft?

So obviously the results from older drafts will be better because players have been adding to the results for longer than more recent drafts. Is there some factoring to allow the reader to make that comparison?

Oh...couldn't see the PSD there either. Eddie Betts?

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

Good thread, cheers Cav.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

GWS - the stats are purely on games played. There is no 'factor' applied to older drafts.

I didn't touch the PSD as theres no real consistency to it.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

GWS-out of interest, I've added data on how many players are still "current" in 2012. This in the ND AFL Avg and ND Top 10 sheets.

Have also noticed some incorrect stats in the rookie sheets which I'm fixing.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

Fair enough re the PSD.

It would be interesting to look at games played versus possible games played for each draft.

Forgetting about finals a player drafted in the 2001 draft would have a perfect score if they'd played 242 games until now, 2002 draft 220, 2003 draft 198 etc.

From memory the average draftee plays somewhere between 40 and 50 games (might be less).

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

Well done AIRCAV. You've obviously invested some serious time into this analysis.

I guess the question to ask is "Why do we trade away our earlier picks?".

Do we not believe that we can develop these players?
Or has the following underlying philosophy been driving our recruitment strategy.
The Carlton quest for instant results / short term success means that we are not prepared to invest the time, patience and money into developing young draftees. We would rather spend the money on what we believe are known quantities / players.

Just a question for Cazzesman if he's around.

How much of this sort of analysis does the club do regarding our long term results/philosophy etc?

And does the board/football department reflect on this sort of historical analysis (if they have them) when working out their longer term recruiting strategies.

Not trying to set you up - serious question.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

FMD that's some work in there Cav.

Well done.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

Amazing analysis Cav, you should send it into the Club.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Good stuff CAV....thanks for the effort.

Says it all....we knew how to get 'em over the line/Royal Pde... sign 'em up with the chequebook... but we aren't very good at picking the best talent when its our pick.

Don't get me wrong...really happy with the Fisher, Simpson, Armfield, Robinson, Scotland , Laidler,Duigan, and even Warnock selections (I know Warnock and Laidler we secured with Trades), and thrilled with the rookie and PSD selections we've made...but disappointed with the other 29 selctions in the Draft.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Great analysis Cav - just shows the club doesn't even give itself the chance half the time...look at where the likes of Hannebery and Parker were taken in the draft. Duncan, Motlop, Christensen, Vardy all in that 25-45 range. We did ok keeping pick 40 and grabbing Robinson but too often we have a first rounder and then not another pick till 50 or beyond. You can't build quality depth with that sort of drafting/trading attitude
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V

_________________
"I said I'd tell you the truth. Didn't say you'd like it." - Finch

Yep, certainly puts things into perspective but the only gray point is some extra perspective on the 'successful' trades versus draft picks because that's not mutually exclusive. Logic would have it that we definitely lose out in terms of depth (and potential 'upside') and may have issues with an ageing list.

I would think one answer would be to put 'surplus' players up for trade to get what we want.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Thanks guys. I actually started out just looking at our Trades and it snowballed from there.
The "engine" is now built and it's relatively easy for me to update this on an ongoing basis.

It'd be a tad disappointing if this analysis hasn't been done by the club.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

I'm really curious to know how much of that they do or whether it's just a case of year to year this is how many picks you've got.

I'd actually be really pleased if they haven't been doing this because then there's upside. If they've been doing it and come up with the same results and are then still holding the recruiters arms behind their backs then "they" should be shot.

Not sure where the responsibility should lie but your analysis would be a handy piece of data to have in the back pocket for an incoming board member who's not convinced by our record at the draft.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

Cav brilliant stuff
In your summary you state we are one of the worst in rounds 1-3 but have done really well out of trades
Most of our trades have been with picks from rounds 1-3 - so does that in effect cancel itself out or are we still in negative territory

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

That's what I was trying to ask but my guess is we wouldn't have the same amount of trades as the draft picks we've lost. We'd make the difference up with rookie selections. It's also harder to try to prise the best players from their original clubs so I think that we'd be settling on minimum requirements with many of our recruits. I'm guessing it amounts to a middling performance. Good against the strugglers but those who had their act together would have the edge on us.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Excellent point SB. I'll have a look at it tomorrow and see if I can 'quantify' what we traded.

_________________
Everything before the word "but" is horseshit - J Snow

Q