The purpose of the thread should be obvious. Everyone always goes on about choosing the 'Best Available' when it comes to draft day. But what is best available? Even after a few years in an AFL system there is still a great deal of disagreement on who is the best available just on our list!

So we can see why there is such a wide variation between clubs in how they rate players. The clubs have different holes in their list and different game plans that require different types of players to be effective. Just look at how St Kilda rated Luke Ball, and how he has been rated far higher at Collingwood.

So why do some rate Watts above Scully? Why do some rate Frawley above Watts? Why do some rate Petterd in the top 6, while others rate him in the bottom 6?

I could make arguments that each of Scully, Watts and Trengove is better, on a 'Best Available' basis, than either of the others. Every club will always pick the best available for their club, because it's so hard to separate them purely on best available.

I rated Scully as my first pick because I think he's a 100% certain gold plated star midfielder. I pick Watts second because he's a freak and has the ability to be the most important player on our list in a position that's almost impossible to get, but I think that Scully's certainty to be a star and the importance of midfielders swayed me. But I could be easily argued to have Watts first.

So, if we had pick 1, who would you choose - based purely on "Best Available"?

Tom Scully - I prefer certainty.

I think each player has a range of possible outcomes - this could be represented as a score out of 100. Scully has a high, tight range say 85-92. He wont be worse than 85. Watts (say 75-95) and Jurrah (say 30-95) have a higher maximum potential but a greater range.

Yeah, for the 3rd time, this teaches us that "Best Available" is subjective.

Not much else though.

old55:

That true that the variability is an important aspect. Risk management, if you will.

If Watts is 75-95, then Daniel Rich is a 80-85 and Naitanui is 60-95. I know you prefer the certainty in your drafting, so how would you order these 3 on draft day? Based on this Watts would be before Naita, but where does Rich - man's body and ready to play - fall?

E25:

Do some analysis and then join the thread. If you don't want to then leave the thread. Easy choice.

The adults are trying to talk.

I'd probably go Scully at "1" on reflection - because of him being a mid (which is of significance), even though I'd seriously be tempted for Frawley who I did list first on page one of this thread. Thanks alot AoB.

edit: good risk assessment old.

Edited October 27, 201014 yr by High Tower

old55:

That true that the variability is an important aspect. Risk management, if you will.

If Watts is 75-95, then Daniel Rich is a 80-85 and Naitanui is 60-95. I know you prefer the certainty in your drafting, so how would you order these 3 on draft day? Based on this Watts would be before Naita, but where does Rich - man's body and ready to play - fall?

Depends what "needs" you might want to assess....only kidding !

Watts, Rich, Naitanui - considering that killer left foot weighs heavily on my decision.

FWIW I've seen enough of Watts to be very confident he'll be exceptional. It's an impossible commodity to get really so he wins hands down for me. In his second year never having had a preseason and being bottom age he's shown more that Frawley at the same stage. He's got all the physical attributes and the only thing that would sway me would be his desire to play footy. I'm assuming he's got that.

Come GF day I know who I want in my team if I can only have one.

I reckon that is a fair comparison in having shown more than Frawley at the same stage/age. I'm pretty confident he's got the desire to play footy.

I think a 90 mid against an 80 KP (CHF) is almost comparing oranges and apples. But you can't underestimate a good CHF. Hardest recognised position on the ground.

Different set tasks apply though. I don't see one ahead of the other, they're both of equal importance. The engine room is where it all starts. But, if you've got both, which we seem to have, all the more better.

Having said that it's still much better than any contribution you've made lately.

Hannabal on the other hand............

I suspect you're right. I'm pretty much done and dusted. I can't even be bothered arguing with a peanut like you.

Peanuts - I am thinking the scoring system is universal so that a mid at 90 is better than a CHF at 80 and vice versa - maybe that's impossible and I'm mad. Can you score current mature players out of 100 on the same scale - N.Riewoldt, Ablett, Sandilands, Hodge?

Bob - On the Rich v Naitanui question, I think with top 5 picks you really want to get a star - they're so hard to find, 85 is not star enough (while Scully's 92 is) so I'd take Naitanui despite the risk of a bust. I think that's what happened in reality with Rich too.

What a great thread.

Frawley

Watts

Jurrah

Scully

Grimes

Garland

Trengove

Gysberts

Morton

Petterd

Bennell

McKenzie

Wonaeamirri

Bail

Blease

Tapscott

Gawn

Fitzpatrick

Jetta

Strauss

Maric

McNamara

Spencer

Peanuts - I am thinking the scoring system is universal so that a mid at 90 is better than a CHF at 80 and vice versa - maybe that's impossible and I'm mad. Can you score current mature players out of 100 on the same scale - N.Riewoldt, Ablett, Sandilands, Hodge?

Bob - On the Rich v Naitanui question, I think with top 5 picks you really want to get a star - they're so hard to find, 85 is not star enough (while Scully's 92 is) so I'd take Naitanui despite the risk of a bust. I think that's what happened in reality with Rich too.

Love the idea of a range. I think, if you want to use scores, you can definitely rate mature players on the same scale, although once they've peaked it probably becomes a bit more problematic.

Fascinated to hear what you and others see Morton's scale looking like at the moment.

Thought I would rate my top 10 from earlier in the thread.

Frawley - 80-95

Scully - 80-95

Jurrah -60-90

Grimes -75-90

Trengove -75-90

Watts -75-95

Garland -70-85

Morton -50-90

McKenzie -65-85

Petterd - 50-80

I'm open to some feedback and criticism if necessary.

Oh! ye'll take the high road and

I'll take the low road,

And I'll be in Scotland afore ye!

Thanks to HT removing my post from another thread this is out of place and without context.

Basically, you cannot accuse someone of taking the low road and tacitly imply you are taking the high road while using 'low road' means.

Paradox.

Word of the day.

Edited October 28, 201014 yr by rpfc

old: I think whether you want a star or you want the certainty probably depends on where your club is at the time.

For example, if St Kilda had the choice then they are probably going to want the certainty of getting a really good player. They're in their window now and would want a sure fire quality player. Geelong, too, never really went for the superstar 'Hail Mary' pick with their first rounders. They always went for the player that was likely to be a really good player and left other clubs to take the risks. It's no surprise that their team was so composed with the ball, as they kept taking good, solid, composed players. Their stars came father-son (Ablett, Scarlett) and then they just overcame teams with their huge spread of A graders.

On the contrary, Melbourne at the start of our development were pretty thin for potential stars. It turns out that Frawley has a chance, in retrospect. But we needed the stars and so we needed to take more of a risk to get there. So Watts/Naitanui were more attractive, since Rich is guaranteed A grade but unlikely to be any more.

Looking at the 'spread' system, I'd like to adjust it a bit. It's good to know what the risk is, but you'd also like to know what the mean is. Morton, according to HT's example, may be 50-90 but, on the bell curve, is he skewed further one way or the other? Is he more likely to be 85 or 55? His mean is probably 80, which isn't reflected in the spread.

old: I think whether you want a star or you want the certainty probably depends on where your club is at the time.

For example, if St Kilda had the choice then they are probably going to want the certainty of getting a really good player. They're in their window now and would want a sure fire quality player. Geelong, too, never really went for the superstar 'Hail Mary' pick with their first rounders. They always went for the player that was likely to be a really good player and left other clubs to take the risks. It's no surprise that their team was so composed with the ball, as they kept taking good, solid, composed players. Their stars came father-son (Ablett, Scarlett) and then they just overcame teams with their huge spread of A graders.

On the contrary, Melbourne at the start of our development were pretty thin for potential stars. It turns out that Frawley has a chance, in retrospect. But we needed the stars and so we needed to take more of a risk to get there. So Watts/Naitanui were more attractive, since Rich is guaranteed A grade but unlikely to be any more.

Yes but it's sort of self-regulating because I think the real prospect of stars, where you really want to pick one is at the start of the first round and by definition the "building" clubs have those picks and get access to Naitanui, whereas the "finishing" clubs have the later first rounders and get access to Rich. It's not a rule though, Geelong was building even though they didn't have pointy picks, and look at Cyril Rioli.

Looking at the 'spread' system, I'd like to adjust it a bit. It's good to know what the risk is, but you'd also like to know what the mean is. Morton, according to HT's example, may be 50-90 but, on the bell curve, is he skewed further one way or the other? Is he more likely to be 85 or 55? His mean is probably 80, which isn't reflected in the spread.

Yes a key addition - I had Jurrah 30-95 but where's the mean? McAdam or Franklin?

Thanks to HT removing my post from another thread this is out of place and without context.

Basically, you cannot accuse someone of taking the low road and tacitly imply you are taking the high road while using 'low road' means.

It wasn't just yours, there were a fair number irrelevant fwiw. Btw there is a general discussion board for this type of discussion.

Yep, Rioli was picked up there. But they had some making up to do after taking Thorp and Dowler as their previous top picks. Sometimes the risks pay off for you, but sometimes you end up with Beau Muston. It's possible, but it's very risky.

How would Hawthorn be if they'd realised they had picked up Buddy and Roughy who would be good, and then just played it safely like Geelong did by picking up guaranteed AFL midfielders with their first round picks? Selwood instead of Thorp. Higgins instead of Dowler. Shuey instead of Schoenmakers. I know it may be a bit of a stretch to do so, but it shows the different styles. Given that Hawthorn already had Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin and Roughead, maybe taking the conservative route would have been better for them. Maybe not.

Re: the mean. Jurrah's a very difficult one. He's one where you just have to trust your instinct on him and take the chance (or otherwise). He could have two spikes in the bell - one at 85 and one at 50!

Selwood was a risk also though, with perceived dodgy knees.

That's why he lasted til 7...

I'm talking about the style of player. Even with a dodgy knee he was still a safe bet in footballing terms.

It wasn't just yours, there were a fair number irrelevant fwiw. Btw there is a general discussion board for this type of discussion.

I wasn't criticising your decision, HT.

As for arguing this 'outside':

I only visit two sites on this Board and I am pretty sure that others do the same.

Sometimes people need immediate feedback that moves into 'non-football related' territory.

I give it to them.

To-and-fro, and we're done.

Maybe they don't go to the General Discussion section because they're not interested once discussions move into 'non-football related territory'.

Maybe.

I wasn't criticising your decision, HT.

As for arguing this 'outside':

I only visit two sites on this Board and I am pretty sure that others do the same.

Sometimes people need immediate feedback that moves into 'non-football related' territory.

I give it to them.

To-and-fro, and we're done.

In general you do. But it's not fact. IIRC you had a good thread in the general discussion about this time last year, did you not ? An Unreadable Compromise

I can't question your contributions and feedback.

Looking at the 'spread' system, I'd like to adjust it a bit. It's good to know what the risk is, but you'd also like to know what the mean is. Morton, according to HT's example, may be 50-90 but, on the bell curve, is he skewed further one way or the other? Is he more likely to be 85 or 55? His mean is probably 80, which isn't reflected in the spread.

Fair point. I think Morton will turn out to be a decent player. For me, there is a bit of uncertainty though, hence the low value of 50. It could well have been 60/65 on reflection. I think he's good footy can be very good (ie. 90), it just remains to be seen with Morton tbh. Suck it and see type player and how well he can develop. If he doesn't fill out, if he doesn't become as accountable as we'd like when defending, if he doesn't contest the way we'd like him to, the '50' or '60' threshold may be valid. Maybe.

In general you do. But it's not fact. IIRC you had a good thread in the general discussion about this time last year, did you not ? An Unreadable Compromise

I can't question your contributions and feedback.

The UC thread was due to my ridiculous posts of the time being a threat to 'straight' debate.

This year the ridiculousness is hidden inside of actual opinion and we are seeing some reaction to it.

We all need to loosen up but some need to realise that engaging in forums require your opinion to be parsed.

And some won't like it. And some will call you an idiot. Which isn't called for, but what also isn't called for is called the person who called you an idiot - a [censored], while not realising you are now a hypocrite.

Edited October 28, 201014 yr by High Tower
language !

The UC thread was due to my ridiculous posts of the time being a threat to 'straight' debate.

This year the ridiculousness is hidden inside of actual opinion and we are seeing some reaction to it.

We all need to loosen up but some need to realise that engaging in forums require your opinion to be parsed.

And some won't like it. And some will call you an idiot. Which isn't called for, but what also isn't called for is called the person who called you an idiot - a [censored], while not realising you are now a hypocrite.

calluses?