The history of Picks 11, 18, 34 and 50

[Footynut 302]

As stars collide and Thursday night comes towards us I'm kinda of sick of listening to all the Luke Ball debate without the data to give us something factual to make judgement.

So here is precedent....yes I have too much time on my hands...I posed this question on Barry Dawsons Poll but figured this could change the course of the thread so here it is as a separate thread.

Pick 11 last 10 years:

Lenny Hayes

Darren Glass

Trent Spron Carl

Richard Cole

Jason Winderlich

Beau Waters

Adam Thomson PA

Shaun Higgins

Andrejs Everitt

Patrick Veszpremi

Steele Sidebottom

Pick 16 - I have included for the sake of assuming if GC have taken some of the talent out of the mix our pick could be reflected more like pick 16...

Brett Burton

David Haynes Geel

Scott Thompson Mel

Rick Ladson

Stephen Gilham

Josh Willoughby Syd

Adam Pattison Ric

Richard Douglas Adel

Mitchell Brown WC

Matthew Lobbe PA

Ryan Schoenmakers

Pick 18

Daniel Schell Freo

Rhyce Shaw

Daniel Kerr

Shane Harvey Ess

Kris Shone NM

Llane Spanderman Br

Cameron Wood Bris

Max Bailey Haw

Leroy Jetta Ess

Alex Rance Rich

Luke Shuey WC

Pick 23 taking into account GC have taken some talent so roughly our pick would reflect this level of talent available?

Chris Ladhams Ess

Daniel Foster Geelong

Drew Petrie

Charlie Gardner

Tom Lonergan

Matthew Moody Bris

Sean Rusling Coll

Ryan Cook Coll

Paul Stewart PA

Tayte Pears

David Zaharakis

I was on a roll so out of interest Pick 34

Brian Bienke Adel

Leon Davis

Ryan Lonie

Simon Okeefe Ess

Sean Dempster Syd

Luke Peel Pt Adel

James Ezard PA

Matthew Spanger

Chris Schmidt Bris

Dawson Simpson

Liam Shiels

And yes I did do pick 50 just because I know BP, CC and DB really need the info for Thursday...

Damien Adkins Coll

Matthew Whelan

Dominic Casissi

Paul Salmon Hawt

Josh Thewlis Syd

Iszac Thompson WB

Jatden Attard Bris

Sam Lonergan Ess

Will Schofield WC

Dan McKenna Geel

Jordan Lisle

So there you go.....

Now you can make a judgement on the Luke Ball debate based on benchmarks of the past.

In addition this info may also assist those debating the tall v small v ruckman/ best available v needs arguements!

So analyse the data and put your case based on it people.

All I can say is pick 11 stands out as almost defintely getting a quality player from there it just becomes more and more hit and miss.

I hope this helps everyone in some way to heal as a club and realise its a game of inches... (forgive the butchered (NPI) movie quotes!)

Edited November 23, 2009 by Footynut

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So its true.

You can actually pick the winning Tattslotto numbers this week based on what has happened in the past.

Good to know.

[45HG 1,539]

Further proof for you RR

[Footynut 302]

So its true.

You can actually pick the winning Tattslotto numbers this week based on what has happened in the past.

Good to know.

Different to Tatts in that of course the higher the pick the better the player. This analysis shows that....of course thats obvious but I'm one of those who likes to verify in black and white....

However of interest most the ruckman or KPP picked 18 up with the picks we hold havent been world beaters....

Thats a concern when so many are calling for KPP at 11 and 18....

Having said that pick 18 has contained one red hot mid in Daniel Kerr....

So do we go Ball or not based on the data?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Further proof for you RR

Cripes.

I read the article and all my spoons bent.

Seriously, if its going to happen anywhere then Russia, Bulgaria or Columbia seem about right.

The funny thing is that 18 people buy that kooked wisdom picked the six winning numbers and won approx $3,000. Is that lucky or unlucky?

Different to Tatts in that of course the higher the pick the better the player. This analysis shows that....of course thats obvious but I'm one of those who likes to verify in black and white....

No it isn't.

Except in Bulgaria, the numbers in lotto drawn in one week are not dependent upon earlier draws.

The same for the AFL draft. Past year outcomes do not affect this years outcomes.

Past year draft picks are no reliable indicator of who or what type of player you will take in the current draft.

So do we go Ball or not based on the data?

Inconclusive but I would sure bat if I won the toss in the Boxing Day Test.

[Footynut 302]

Cripes.

I read the article and all my spoons bent.

Seriously, if its going to happen anywhere then Russia, Bulgaria or Columbia seem about right.

The funny thing is that 18 people buy that kooked wisdom picked the six winning numbers and won approx $3,000. Is that lucky or unlucky?

No it isn't.

Except in Bulgaria, the numbers in lotto drawn in one week are not dependent upon earlier draws.

The same for the AFL draft. Past year outcomes do not affect this years outcomes.

Past year draft picks are no reliable indicator of who or what type of player you will take in the current draft.

Inconclusive but I would sure bat if I won the toss in the Boxing Day Test.

onya Rhino! you're too good - all that time I spent only to be shut down without a whimper.....

Even the Lotto article doesnt move you!

[rpfc 28,441]

Further proof for you RR

4 of the 6 numbers picked two weeks in a row are from the '4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42' numbers that have LOST fans baffled.

The island is gaining power.

[JACKATTACK 17]

onya Rhino! you're too good - all that time I spent only to be shut down without a whimper.....

Even the Lotto article doesnt move you!

I wouldn't bother, I think RR was attacked as a child by some evidence, he prefers opinion and speculation over facts, especially his own, he's the Barnaby Joice of demonland.

And the tattslotto analogy is weak.

Good wook Footynut, definately worth trying to gain a better understanding of the relative value of all our picks.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

onya Rhino! you're too good - all that time I spent only to be shut down without a whimper.....

Even the Lotto article doesnt move you!

F.N you will learn quickly that RR is a very hard man to crack!! Thanks for your lists, We have a chance at setting up a Great Team on thursday night. I just know this time the Demons are going to do it right.

[DeeM 42]

As stars collide and Thursday night comes towards us I'm kinda of sick of listening to all the Luke Ball debate without the data to give us something factual to make judgement.

So here is precedent....yes I have too much time on my hands...I posed this question on Barry Dawsons Poll but figured this could change the course of the thread so here it is as a separate thread.

Pick 11 last 10 years:

Lenny Hayes

Darren Glass

Trent Spron Carl

Richard Cole

Jason Winderlich

Beau Waters

Adam Thomson PA

Shaun Higgins

Andrejs Everitt

Patrick Veszpremi

Steele Sidebottom

Pick 16 - I have included for the sake of assuming if GC have taken some of the talent out of the mix our pick could be reflected more like pick 16...

Brett Burton

David Haynes Geel

Scott Thompson Mel

Rick Ladson

Stephen Gilham

Josh Willoughby Syd

Adam Pattison Ric

Richard Douglas Adel

Mitchell Brown WC

Matthew Lobbe PA

Ryan Schoenmakers

Pick 18

Daniel Schell Freo

Rhyce Shaw

Daniel Kerr

Shane Harvey Ess

Kris Shone NM

Llane Spanderman Br

Cameron Wood Bris

Max Bailey Haw

Leroy Jetta Ess

Alex Rance Rich

Luke Shuey WC

Pick 23 taking into account GC have taken some talent so roughly our pick would reflect this level of talent available?

Chris Ladhams Ess

Daniel Foster Geelong

Drew Petrie

Charlie Gardner

Tom Lonergan

Matthew Moody Bris

Sean Rusling Coll

Ryan Cook Coll

Paul Stewart PA

Tayte Pears

David Zaharakis

I was on a roll so out of interest Pick 34

Brian Bienke Adel

Leon Davis

Ryan Lonie

Simon Okeefe Ess

Sean Dempster Syd

Luke Peel Pt Adel

James Ezard PA

Matthew Spanger

Chris Schmidt Bris

Dawson Simpson

Liam Shiels

And yes I did do pick 50 just because I know BP, CC and DB really need the info for Thursday...

Damien Adkins Coll

Matthew Whelan

Dominic Casissi

Paul Salmon Hawt

Josh Thewlis Syd

Iszac Thompson WB

Jatden Attard Bris

Sam Lonergan Ess

Will Schofield WC

Dan McKenna Geel

Jordan Lisle

So there you go.....

Now you can make a judgement on the Luke Ball debate based on benchmarks of the past.

In addition this info may also assist those debating the tall v small v ruckman/ best available v needs arguements!

So analyse the data and put your case based on it people.

All I can say is pick 11 stands out as almost defintely getting a quality player from there it just becomes more and more hit and miss.

I hope this helps everyone in some way to heal as a club and realise its a game of inches... (forgive the butchered (NPI) movie quotes!)

Sounds like we have a lawyer on our hands!!

[Crystal Dees 372]

I wouldn't bother, I think RR was attacked as a child by some evidence, he prefers opinion and speculation over facts, especially his own, he's the Barnaby Joice of demonland.

And the tattslotto analogy is weak.

Good wook Footynut, definately worth trying to gain a better understanding of the relative value of all our picks.

Exactly Jackattack. I'll take history over Rhino anyday. Although you could say they are one and the same.

[Footynut 302]

Exactly Jackattack. I'll take history over Rhino anyday. Although you could say they are one and the same.

all good team as I said let's heal as a club ( yes RR you too!)

now back to the thread...do we take ball or hope we get a Daniel Kerr?

Not many Kpp taken with these picks in the past and those taken are average at best.... I'm thinking green machine might be onto something.... I hope cc bp db read this...lol

[praha 11,240]

We're not taking Ball with pick 11. Stop discussing it, stop thinking about it, stop debating it.

[Adzman 2,154]

History is there as a guide, not the gospel. IF we are to be great then history is to be rewritten. Take kids with 11 and 18 and see where it takes us. Luke ball is the SURE thing, but his selection does not guarantee us anything over selecting a kid at pick 11 or 18.

Fortune favors the brave.

[H_T 3,047]

Inconclusive but I would sure bat if I won the toss in the Boxing Day Test.

You've changed your tune.

I'd wait for the pitch and weather conditions first.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I wouldn't bother, I think RR was attacked as a child by some evidence, he prefers opinion and speculation over facts, especially his own, he's the Barnaby Joice of demonland.

And the tattslotto analogy is weak.

Good wook Footynut, definately worth trying to gain a better understanding of the relative value of all our picks.

Leave your childhood horrors out of this.

I am not surprised your impressed by those figures Jacka and its ironic you put weight on the "facts". Good grief.

BTW its Joyce, not Joice. Well done on spelling Barnaby correctly. Top notch.

You've changed your tune.

I'd wait for the pitch and weather conditions first.

Haha. I agree. My comment only served to highlight that pas draft choices have as much bearing on the Boxing Day Test as it does on whether we should choose Ball or not. Not that some can work that out.

[Nasher 33,616]

he prefers opinion and speculation over facts

The past drafts don't represent any facts that are relevant or helpful. There's been spuds and great pickups at most picks in every draft. If in 2008 a lemon was picked at 12 but a star was picked at 13, does that mean you'd want to avoid pick 12 in 2009, but would be happy with 13?

Going by the logic I've read in this thread, and many others, we might as well not bother participating in the draft at all. After all, there's been some pretty lousy pick 1 and 2 players in the past as well.

[45HG 1,539]

I see what you're saying Nasher, but surely we should've traded pick 2 for pick 7...

[sue 9,107]

The past drafts don't represent any facts that are relevant or helpful.

They do. For a start they tell you that the chances of getting a top player from an early pick is better than from a lower pick. You might say that is bloody obvious, but the past drafts do confirm what your common sense predicts. The question is can the past history tell you more than this.

The initial post is a reasonable attempt to help identify the point at which agonising over who to pick is not worth the ulcers. People talking about Lotto and bum pick 1 players are missing the point.

I'd guess that the most likely lesson from such an analysis would be something like:

• Picks after say 25 are not worth agonizing over - just go for whoever seems to fit the needs and it is is a matter of luck if you get someone who turns out to be a top player.
• Earlier picks are worth agonizing over, especially if you think you know what are the early signs of a future champ or a future dud.

Of course if you really do know how to detect future duds, then you should activate your dud-selector for every selection including choosing the person who cuts up the oranges for 3/4 time! (By the way, when did that stop happening?)

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

They do. For a start they tell you that the chances of getting a top player from an early pick is better than from a lower pick. You might say that is bloody obvious, but the past drafts do confirm what your common sense predicts. The question is can the past history tell you more than this.

But that issue was not needed to be proven. It was known already. The issue the OP had was that it assisted us in determining whether to take Ball or not. It does not provide any plausible or reliable evidence. Its fools gold.

The initial post is a reasonable attempt to help identify the point at which agonising over who to pick is not worth the ulcers. People talking about Lotto and bum pick 1 players are missing the point.

Its flawed. The Lotto example is exactly the same as what the OP and misguided others are trying to do. To use past outcomes to provide a reliable indicator of a future outcome is incorrect. The outcomes in one draft are dependent on issues and considerations pertinent to the draft (ie teams order of selection, quaility of draft pool, nature of current game etc) and is mutually exclusive to the outcomes in another draft. Its not that hard to understand.

[old55 23,593]

But that issue was not needed to be proven. It was known already. The issue the OP had was that it assisted us in determining whether to take Ball or not. It does not provide any plausible or reliable evidence. Its fools gold.

Its flawed. The Lotto example is exactly the same as what the OP and misguided others are trying to do. To use past outcomes to provide a reliable indicator of a future outcome is incorrect. The outcomes in one draft are dependent on issues and considerations pertinent to the draft (ie teams order of selection, quaility of draft pool, nature of current game etc) and is mutually exclusive to the outcomes in another draft. Its not that hard to understand.

What's not flawed is that Ball will give us 60 games minimum - how many games will the average 2nd rounder give us (which is what pick 18 is this year by rpfc's sig logic)? And it needs to be at least 20-40 more for us to be ahead because there is learning curve for 18yos. This average number will give an indication of the relative risk and reward. Of course it comes down to BP's analysis of the individual players available at the pick but we can get a guide from the average. Anyone have this info?

[Axis of Bob 11,829]

The difference that we have with Ball is the timing of his games. Ball's 60 games may be in a period where it will only help to lift us from 13th to 9th on the ladder. Pick 18 may be playing good footy in a period where his performance will lift us from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st.

It's no good having 60 games of service if he's of no use when we need him in 5 years time.

[sue 9,107]

But that issue was not needed to be proven. It was known already. The issue the OP had was that it assisted us in determining whether to take Ball or not.

I agree that it won't be helpful regarding Ball. For a start he is not a raw youngster and the data is almost all about them only.

But as extra information bearing on where to put your effort in draft consideration, the past is meaningful. At a common sense level selectors apply it - they spend more time investigating and worrying about early picks.

The question (well my question if the OP focussed only on the Ball issue) is: can past history give selectors a better guide when to stop wasting time investigating players who will go late in the draft. Personally I doubt it can or would be of much practical use.

But in any case, it is not like tossing a coin or Lotto. The fact that 100 heads come up in a row does not change the probability that the next toss will be a head. (But it might make you suspect the coin is loaded.)

[45HG 1,539]

Another reason for this to be skewed is that Ball himself is already a number two draft pick.

[old55 23,593]

The difference that we have with Ball is the timing of his games. Ball's 60 games may be in a period where it will only help to lift us from 13th to 9th on the ladder. Pick 18 may be playing good footy in a period where his performance will lift us from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st.

It's no good having 60 games of service if he's of no use when we need him in 5 years time.

That is a valid point.

Alternatively maybe we need those 60 games of experience and example right now to help set us up in 5 years.