The history of Picks 11, 18, 34 and 50

[H_T 2,941]

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.

True. Although one could add, those 60 games of service amongst young up and comers in Scully, Trengove, Blease, Strauss, Morton....(hell just make it the whole team) could be very beneficial in terms of leadership and "showing the way"on field and at training.... it could fast track things a little.

Just another thought..

edit: was posting the same time as you old....

Edited November 24, 2009 by High Tower

[titan_uranus 22,357]

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.

Don't tell me you're a Lost fan, rpfc?

If so, you and I have a lot of talking to do.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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.

I think this information is known and given but is not harbinger of what your options are in the current draft. But we are on the same track here.

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.)

Sorry for the way the OP was using the information it is the same case. Each situation outcome is mutually exclusive of the other. I think you are arguing the point I made originally.

The fact that 100 heads comes up will make you never want to call tails again. :D

[rpfc 27,451]

Don't tell me you're a Lost fan, rpfc?

If so, you and I have a lot of talking to do.

Don't ask me.

I have no idea what's going on and I have watched every episode.

[titan_uranus 22,357]

Don't ask me.

I have no idea what's going on and I have watched every episode.

And I thought you were intelligent...

[rpfc 27,451]

And I thought you were intelligent...

There's always someone (or a few) smarter, and JJ Abrams would be one of those people.

[old55 21,298]

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?

Average games played by draftees will be misleading because of course many are still mid career, Jack Watts has played 4 games so will drag down the pick 1 average. We'd need to go back far enough so that careers were complete and that's too far because drafting science has improved a lot.

Here's some analysis that is useful:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=654570

It shows that from pick 21 on (about the value of 2009 pick 18) the % number of games played is pretty constant and about 60% that of 1-10 and 75% of 11-20. It shows a decent drop off and puts the value of pick 18 into some context.

If we happen to take Ball with 18 it will be great to hear who posters think we should have taken instead. It took over 5 years for the coach of a generation saga to play out on demonology - I'm a patient man.

[Deestroy All 14,261]

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.

Excellent Nasher, straight to the point and on the money as usual.

I've been losing sleep over having picks 1 and 2. Josh Fraser was a number 1 pick, let's all take a moment to lol at that... And Daniel Wells was a numero dos... I really don't see how these 2 players are going to help our team. So in conclusion I'm really hoping we pass on 1 and 2, and pick up Daniel Kerr2010 edition at 18.

[JACKATTACK 17]

To use past outcomes to provide a reliable indicator of a future outcome is incorrect.

True not a reliable indicatore, but an indicator worth considering here at least, and with a little bit of work compiling some lists and relating all recent drafts to eachother via some regression analysis it would prove you incorrect. I would provide all of this for free and add to the quality and output of this site by providing unbiased evidence in place of opinion, but then you would just come back spouting some more about tattslotto and that evidence is worthless and so on and so forth.

Edited November 24, 2009 by JACKATTACK

[titan_uranus 22,357]

True not a reliable indicatore, but an indicator worth considering here at least, and with a little bit of work compiling some lists and relating all recent drafts to eachother via some regression analysis it would prove you incorrect. I would provide all of this for free and add to the quality and output of this site by providing unbiased evidence in place of opinion, but then you would just come back spouting some more about tattslotto and that evidence is worthless and so on and so forth.

Please do it. I for one would like to see you explain to me why Pick 7 is so good.

I see no reason to make judgements on picks by comparing them to previous years.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

True not a reliable indicatore, but an indicator worth considering here at least, and with a little bit of work compiling some lists and relating all recent drafts to eachother via some regression analysis it would prove you incorrect. I would provide all of this for free and add to the quality and output of this site by providing unbiased evidence in place of opinion, but then you would just come back spouting some more about tattslotto and that evidence is worthless and so on and so forth.

Do the work. Regression analysis you talk of will not prove any linkage. It will just be a list of mutually exclusive events It indicates nothing of use that would impact decisions that would be made in the current draft. Its that simple

So far you spout about facts and unbiased evidence and have given none whatsoever in this thread or other thread involving this issue. All you have done is give an opinion based on flawed logic laced with pretence.

You have done nothing to disprove my statement nor disprove my analogy of comparing various annual drafts with weekly tattslotto. Either you understand it or you dont.

[1858 219]

Here's some analysis that is useful:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=654570

It shows that from pick 21 on (about the value of 2009 pick 18) the % number of games played is pretty constant and about 60% that of 1-10 and 75% of 11-20. It shows a decent drop off and puts the value of pick 18 into some context.

Beware the pitfalls of indexation.

If we hypothetically equated pick 18 with pick 21: we could just as much include it in a 10 pick index of [12 - 21] as [21 - 30]. Pick 21 could then come out in a completely different light.

Having said that the information still has value from a very general stand point given we don't really know where 18 compares in this draft.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

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.

Nope. Maybe in the old days but contemporary AFL recruitment has it all sorted out. Here's the last dozen top2ers:

Watts, Naitanui, Krueuzer, Cotchin, Gibbs, Gumbleton, Murphy, Thomas, Delidio, Roughead, Cooney, Walker

Not too much wrong with that group at all, in fact most of them are deadset guns ...and so it will be with SCULGOVE, and that's why Dean Bailey has done what he's done

11 and 18 are a different story and beyond that a lottery

[JACKATTACK 17]

Do the work. Regression analysis you talk of will not prove any linkage. It will just be a list of mutually exclusive events It indicates nothing of use that would impact decisions that would be made in the current draft. Its that simple

So far you spout about facts and unbiased evidence and have given none whatsoever in this thread or other thread involving this issue. All you have done is give an opinion based on flawed logic laced with pretence.

You have done nothing to disprove my statement nor disprove my analogy of comparing various annual drafts with weekly tattslotto. Either you understand it or you dont.

I have before, and not that long ago, you pushed the same line then.

I won't do the work as I said before, because no-matter what result you will regurgitate the same stuff you always do, discrediting anyone on here who holds a different view than yourself.

There are consitencies of pattern across all drafts some strong and some weaker, but none are completely random. One such consistency is the level of randomness that occurs in every draft after the first few picks. That is unlikely to be any different for this draft and given the situation with luke ball it is a timely consideration also. Certainly worth more than the credit you give it.

Either you understand it or you stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I have before, and not that long ago, you pushed the same line then.

I won't do the work as I said before, because no-matter what result you will regurgitate the same stuff you always do, discrediting anyone on here who holds a different view than yourself.

There are consitencies of pattern across all drafts some strong and some weaker, but none are completely random. One such consistency is the level of randomness that occurs in every draft after the first few picks. That is unlikely to be any different for this draft and given the situation with luke ball it is a timely consideration also. Certainly worth more than the credit you give it.

Either you understand it or you stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

As I thought, you dont get it and you are too scared to do the work. Typical.

Tried tealeaves??

Nope. Maybe in the old days but contemporary AFL recruitment has it all sorted out. Here's the last dozen top2ers:

Watts, Naitanui, Krueuzer, Cotchin, Gibbs, Gumbleton, Murphy, Thomas, Delidio, Roughead, Cooney, Walker

Not too much wrong with that group at all, in fact most of them are deadset guns ...and so it will be with SCULGOVE, and that's why Dean Bailey has done what he's done

11 and 18 are a different story and beyond that a lottery

AFL recruiitment has got better but it is not fool proof.

Its too early to make the "gun" call on 1 and 2 picks from 2006 to 2008. Prior to then I think Thomas is an iffy quality for the second best footballer in the draft. And Walker has been a fail. I hope we hit the jackpot with Watts and Sculgove.

[Felix 92]

Draft history means jack squat, James Hird picked @ 79.

[JACKATTACK 17]

As I thought, you dont get it and you are too scared to do the work. Typical.

Tried tealeaves??

These things take time, and why would I when I would just be derided by you for doing so.

AFL recruiitment has got better but it is not fool proof.

Its too early to make the "gun" call on 1 and 2 picks from 2006 to 2008. Prior to then I think Thomas is an iffy quality for the second best footballer in the draft. And Walker has been a fail. I hope we hit the jackpot with Watts and Sculgove.

Wait but I thought you said there is no point looking to the past drafts? Because it's like tattslotto or something, and now you're saying recruitment has got better (sounds like a trend to me) and then you go naming previously drafted players. You've lost the plot!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

These things take time, and why would I when I would just be derided by you for doing so.

Do it for the others that have questioned the validity. Nothing like blaming someone else for cop out is there.

Wait but I thought you said there is no point looking to the past drafts? Because it's like tattslotto or something, and now you're saying recruitment has got better (sounds like a trend to me) and then you go naming previously drafted players. You've lost the plot!

Its a pity you have tried to denigrate me and rebut me without ever understanding my argument. Go and re read. Its not a trend its a process I referred to. I made an assessment of the individual outcome of certain players drafted.

Now run along and do the "research" before you coming to anymore trite conclusions. Its becoming a habit.