Tom Lee cost us pick 61

[kosifantutti]

I've written before how someone on bigfooty had put a points value against every draft pick and could then assess trades of multiple draft picks. He had said we got Tom Lee for virtually nothing, a little bit less than that if I remember correctly.

Now that the AFL has released an official draft points table, we can take an official stab of what draft pick we really gave up for Lee. (http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20 ... system.pdf)

The trade
Pick 12 for Lee, pick 24 and pick 45.
According to the new table

Pick 12 1268 points
Pick 24 785 points
Pick 45 347 points

Pick 24 + Pick 45 = 1132
1268 - 1132 = 136 points

So we effectively gave up 136 points for Tom Lee. This equates to pick 61.

Tom Lee for pick 61 sounds a lot better than Tom Lee for pick 12 as certain journalists and some posters here have said and continue to say.

Other trades:
Hickey for pick 22

The trade
Hickey 25 and 46 for 13, 36, and 55

The valuation
834 points which puts him around pick 22

Pick 38 for Cripps

The trade
Cripps and pick 45 for picks 40 and 43

The valuation
460 points which puts him around pick 38

Pick 32 for Walsh

The trade
Tommy Walsh for picks 35 and 68

The valuation
581 points which puts him around pick 32

Pick 59 for Milera and Saad

The trade
Pick 20 for Pick 25, Milera and Saad

The valuation
156 points which is about pick 59

McEvoy for Savage and pick 18

The trade
McEvoy, pick 25 and pick 59 for Savage pick 18 and pick 19

The valuation
990 points which is about pick 18

Pick 21 for Longer

The trade
Picks 25 and 41 for Longer and pick 48

The valuation
866 points which is about pick 21

Stanley for pick 26

The trade
Stanley and pick 60 for pick 21

The valuation
732 points which is about pick 26

I haven't checked this so feel free to pick at it. No allowances have been made for compromised drafts.

[Con Gorozidis]

Pretty cool system. I like it. Nice one.

[Enrico_Misso]

Very interesting and useful analysis Kosi.

Unlike the first 20 years of the draft when I suspect we were on the negative side of most of our trades, it appears that in those recent trades we have actually done quite well.
Very well in some cases.

[Toy Saint]

The theory may be sound, but we should have got a very good player with pick 12.

You could expect a 1st round selection (pick 12) would get a 200 game player, but pick 61 is likely to get a VFL standard player.

And in my mind, one gun is better than 10 VFL players.

The spreadsheet theory may be sound, but it doesn't necessarily apply in sport

[BackFromUSA]

The theory may be sound, but we should have got a very good player with pick 12.

You could expect a 1st round selection (pick 12) would get a 200 game player, but pick 61 is likely to get a VFL standard player.

And in my mind, one gun is better than 10 VFL players.

The spreadsheet theory may be sound, but it doesn't necessarily apply in sport

But in a compromised draft the actual first round pick players had already been pre-selected and gifted into the draft order for the new clubs so pick 12 was already only going to deliver the 20somethingth best ranked player in that draft.

[BackFromUSA]

Think we only lost out on Cripps based on the fantastic analysis done.

I value Rhys higher than Longer so maybe we lost out there.

[plugger66]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

[saintspremiers]

It's about bloody time this came in. I've had a gutful of Sydney. First their nabbing of Buddy due to their salary cap and then getting Heeney for pick 18.

Suffer in your jocks love child team - the charity is over!

[plugger66]

It's about bloody time this came in. I've had a gutful of Sydney. First their nabbing of Buddy due to their salary cap and then getting Heeney for pick 18.

Suffer in your jocks love child team - the charity is over!

Suffer in your jocks. I remember saying that in about grade 3.

[saynta]

Pretty cool system. I like it. Nice one.

Yes. Very interesting.I still think we would have been better off keeping pick 12.

Although pick 12 was used by GWS to draft Kristian Jaksh who has since been on traded.

[St Chris]

A few of these results can be skewed, because of teams passing in the draft.

In the Stanley trade, we would have never used Pick 60, so whatever points we lost are redundant.

[gringo]

The theory may be sound, but we should have got a very good player with pick 12.

You could expect a 1st round selection (pick 12) would get a 200 game player, but pick 61 is likely to get a VFL standard player.

And in my mind, one gun is better than 10 VFL players.

The spreadsheet theory may be sound, but it doesn't necessarily apply in sport

Not that much talent around after pick 11 that year. Hrovat, Ben Kennedy and Brodie Grundy all around that mark are probably the best of them. It was a pretty shallow draft. Compare that to the last couple and it was a bit of a dud year. That was possibly because of the 17 yo all pulled out and the concessions given to the new clubs but it was pretty slim pickings.

[SuperDuper]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger in one sense: we hope and need some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding the particular case of Tom Lee

[plugger66]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger that we hope some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is just ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding a particular case of Tom Lee

Points are fact in the opinion of the AFL. Yesterday they weren't fact. Today they somehow are. It is quite simple. We gave up pick 12 for Lee but also got some other picks in return. Now they have decided we got Lee at around pick 61. I don't buy it. And im glad im not our recruiting man either because I don't know any of the young kids. Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever. Champions will win the flag for you. You have much more hope at pick 12 than even 4 picks in the 40's. GOPS will help but you need your stars. Yep pick 12 that year would have probably struggled but that is probably more good luck than knowledge

[Con Gorozidis]

I assume they come up with the points using long term probability.
So in your example you have the same chance getting a gun player from a pick 12 as four in the 40s .
Now in real life you wouldnt ever do that trade because of limited list numbers.You would keep the pick 12 and also keep more lists spots for others meaning pick 12 is way better. So these stats dont account for the limited list issue.
So like all statistical analysis it is just a tool and not literal gospel.
Still helpful though. Just needs to be used in context. All trades are different for some reason.

[gringo]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger in one sense: we hope and need some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding the particular case of Tom Lee

At the time Lee was considered a good chance to go to Carlton at pick 11 by draft experts like Emma Quail. I don't think he was that speculative. He was playing outstanding WAFL footy and no one realised his shoulders would be a problem. I think you would find he would have played a lot more if he didn't have shoulder issues. we could have got a kid that was 2 years younger that was no better. If drafting was a perfect science we would already have about 15 super guns on the list from 2005 until 2013. Lynch and cripps were apparently spuds but both are pretty good now and they were more wasteful first rounders, they aren't even still on our list and our return was less than we paid for them.

[plugger66]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger in one sense: we hope and need some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding the particular case of Tom Lee

At the time Lee was considered a good chance to go to Carlton at pick 11 by draft experts like Emma Quail. I don't think he was that speculative. He was playing outstanding WAFL footy and no one realised his shoulders would be a problem. I think you would find he would have played a lot more if he didn't have shoulder issues. we could have got a kid that was 2 years younger that was no better. If drafting was a perfect science we would already have about 15 super guns on the list from 2005 until 2013. Lynch and cripps were apparently spuds but both are pretty good now and they were more wasteful first rounders, they aren't even still on our list and our return was less than we paid for them.

I also think others had Lee no where near the top 12. Like stats you can use draft predictions anyway you like. The point in hindsight is I think we paid far to much and I thought that the day we drafted him. Drafting is far from a perfect science. Any moron knows that but the secret is to limit the negatives.

[SuperDuper]

Points are fact in the opinion of the AFL. Yesterday they weren't fact. Today they somehow are. It is quite simple. We gave up pick 12 for Lee but also got some other picks in return. Now they have decided we got Lee at around pick 61. I don't buy it. And im glad im not our recruiting man either because I don't know any of the young kids. Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever. Champions will win the flag for you. You have much more hope at pick 12 than even 4 picks in the 40's. GOPS will help but you need your stars. Yep pick 12 that year would have probably struggled but that is probably more good luck than knowledge

what are you talking about?
it is a straight forward piece of analysis to compare the career of players taken at different picks, and then assign points, based on more than 20 years of data...

So if Lee was worth 61 on average, that is what we paid... it has nothing to do with facts changing between yesterday and today, Plugger....

Maybe for someone like you it is not simple, as you claim... because if it were simple, maybe you would understand how this type of analysis works.

So maybe it is not simple, but it is informative and it is better analysis to rely on if you are a recruiter than some ramblings...

e.g.

"Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever."

it is about statistics Plugger.... maybe you have heard the word... it is true that more champions were taken top 20 than 20-40... but how do the odds change, precisely, for getting a champion at 15 compared to 25????
It is possible to actually work that out

what are the odds for a champion at each pick? It is quantiftiable... however much you deny it

Or to put it in terms of your anactdotal rant... plenty of champions have been later picks, i.e. after 20... Hird, Goodes, Fisher, Sloane, Steven, Rockliffe, Parker, Walker, Black, Swan, Enright, Micthell, Tingay, B. Harvey, Gray, Montagna, O'Laughlin etc...

the point is.. it is actually easy to measure where good players are taken... and onecan comparing to the number of champions taken top 10 , top 20, or 40-60..

if you want to ignore this type of analysis, fine.

Keep on wandering through life in your ignorant bliss

[SuperDuper]

oh.. and I recon we got a pretty good deal for Josh Bruce

[plugger66]

Points are fact in the opinion of the AFL. Yesterday they weren't fact. Today they somehow are. It is quite simple. We gave up pick 12 for Lee but also got some other picks in return. Now they have decided we got Lee at around pick 61. I don't buy it. And im glad im not our recruiting man either because I don't know any of the young kids. Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever. Champions will win the flag for you. You have much more hope at pick 12 than even 4 picks in the 40's. GOPS will help but you need your stars. Yep pick 12 that year would have probably struggled but that is probably more good luck than knowledge

what are you talking about?
it is straight forward piece of analysis to compare the career of players taken at different picks, and then assign points, based on more than 20 years of data...

So if Lee was worth 61 on average, that is what we paid... it has nothing to do with facts changing between yesterday and today, Plugger....

Maybe for someone like you it is not simple, as you claim... because if it were simple, maybe you would understand how this type of analysis works. Maybe not simple, but it is informative and it is far far better analysis to rely on if you are a recruiter than your ramblings...

e.g.

"Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever."

it is about statistics Plugger.... maybe you have heard the word... it is true that more champions were taken top 20 than 20-40... but how do the odds change, precisely, for getting a champion at 15 compared to 25????
It is possible to actually work that out

what are the odds for a champion at each pick? It is quantiftiable... however much you deny it

Or to put it in terms of your anactdotal rant... plenty of champions have been later picks, i.e. after 20... Hird, Goodes, Fisher, Sloane, Steven, Rockliffe, Parker, Walker, Black, Swan, Enright, Micthell, Tingay, B. Harvey, Gray, Montagna, O'Laughlin etc...

the point is.. it is actually easy to measure where good players are taken... if you want to ignore this type of analysis, fine.
Keep on wondering through life in your ignorant bliss

Again I know how it works. maths is one subject I have my head completely around. What a strange personal rant because I don't buy the points theory. And what a strange point to give me names of champions taken at later picks. you could have blown me down with a feather.

I take it if we got pick 10 this year you would be quite happy to swap it for 4 picks in the 40's because maths says that is a level swap. Well I wouldn't. By the way I gather the maths was done on games played and not their actual ability.

[FQF]

A few of these results can be skewed, because of teams passing in the draft.

In the Stanley trade, we would have never used Pick 60, so whatever points we lost are redundant.

Correct. The analysis is very good, but deducting points for picks upward of 50 is a glitch in the system.

[saintsRrising]

The theory may be sound, but we should have got a very good player with pick 12.

You could expect a 1st round selection (pick 12) would get a 200 game player, but pick 61 is likely to get a VFL standard player.

And in my mind, one gun is better than 10 VFL players.

The spreadsheet theory may be sound, but it doesn't necessarily apply in sport

Not that much talent around after pick 11 that year. Hrovat, Ben Kennedy and Brodie Grundy all around that mark are probably the best of them. It was a pretty shallow draft. Compare that to the last couple and it was a bit of a dud year. That was possibly because of the 17 yo all pulled out and the concessions given to the new clubs but it was pretty slim pickings.

At the time Pelchen explained that the recruiters saw little difference in the quality of player they could get for pick 12 vs picks in the twenties, and so for them they saw it made more sense to gain multiple picks, rather than one pick. They also saw it as a shallow draft that year.

Grundy slipped though, as most has him going before pick 12. Grundy aside if you look who was taken the clubs original theory looks sound.

Some years pick 12 would definitely be way better than picks in the twenties. But that year it was not.


As an aside too I think that the saints were still improving our woeful recruiting team and recruiting resources. If we had the same team then, as now then I think with the same trade we would probably have down better.

[saintsRrising]

The trade
Pick 12 for Lee, pick 24 and pick 45.
According to the new table

Pick 12 1268 points
Pick 24 785 points
Pick 45 347 points

Pick 24 + Pick 45 = 1132
1268 - 1132 = 136 points

So we effectively gave up 136 points for Tom Lee. This equates to pick 61.

Tom Lee for pick 61 sounds a lot better than Tom Lee for pick 12 as certain journalists and some posters here have said and continue to say.

.

Interesting to note that originally that Round 4, Pick #60 2008 National Draft was Tom Lee!!!

However pretty fair guess that our recruiters would have valued him higher, anda number of phantom drafts had him as a top 20 pick that year.


All drafts are not created equal either, as some years clearly have much better talent than others.

[gringo]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger that we hope some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is just ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding a particular case of Tom Lee

Points are fact in the opinion of the AFL. Yesterday they weren't fact. Today they somehow are. It is quite simple. We gave up pick 12 for Lee but also got some other picks in return. Now they have decided we got Lee at around pick 61. I don't buy it. And im glad im not our recruiting man either because I don't know any of the young kids. Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever. Champions will win the flag for you. You have much more hope at pick 12 than even 4 picks in the 40's. GOPS will help but you need your stars. Yep pick 12 that year would have probably struggled but that is probably more good luck than knowledge

[gringo]

I don't care about points. It cost us pick 12. We also got a couple of other picks in return. Anytime you give up a first rounder its a huge punt.

what does this comment even mean??

Points are determined on the basis of facts, i.e. the value of certain picks on average over the entire history of the draft.

Now, obviously, the goal of our club is to recruit at a rate that is better than average, so we would hope to pay less than a player is worth, as often as possible.

With Lee, we seem to have paid pick 61, on average. He is probably worth around pick 60-rookie, i.e. speculative...

Now I agree with you Plugger that we hope some picks in that range work out ... and it seems that Lee will not.

But just claiming that he is "a first rounder" is just ignoring the knowledge that comes from deep analysis of previous drafts...

And as someone wrote above, the pick 61 estimate did not include the fact that it was a compromised draft.

So, if you want to ignore detailed analysis, fine. I am glad you are not on our recruiting team, who will hopefully use that knowledge appropriately and who hopefully recruit above average generally, notwithstanding a particular case of Tom Lee

Points are fact in the opinion of the AFL. Yesterday they weren't fact. Today they somehow are. It is quite simple. We gave up pick 12 for Lee but also got some other picks in return. Now they have decided we got Lee at around pick 61. I don't buy it. And im glad im not our recruiting man either because I don't know any of the young kids. Unlike some here I don't buy that getting 3 later picks is as good as an earlier pick. if that's how it work then would you really give up pick 12 for 4 picks in the 40's. I certainly wouldn't ever. Champions will win the flag for you. You have much more hope at pick 12 than even 4 picks in the 40's. GOPS will help but you need your stars. Yep pick 12 that year would have probably struggled but that is probably more good luck than knowledge

I think recruiters know very well when it's a strong draft year. The 2013 draft was outstanding and has netted more potential champions than any I can remember. Last year was apparently not very strong at the front end but ran deep so you could still get quality at the second round. Of course pick 12 is better than 2 picks in the 40s but if the pool from 10 to 30 is all pretty even it's not as clear cut the swapping out picks for later ones. The BWS and GC compose had messed up the true order of the draft anyway so even pick 12 was a down graded pick compared to a normal year.