Swans Academy and player watch

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Auntie.Gerald
    Veterans List
    • Oct 2009
    • 6480

    could they make the system go over several drafts

    lets take Heeney as an example

    If Heeney is considered pick 5 in the next draft................We have automatic rights now under the Academy concession that we can use our first pick which lets just call it 18...........

    If the new system comes up with say pick 5 is equal to two x pick 18's (just as an example)...........Then we have to give up our pick 18 this year and pick 18 next year ?

    Only issue is what happens if we want to take Mills in the next draft etc etc etc

    This same formulae would need to be applied to Father son also but what frustrates me is that Father son has been massive advantage for clubs for many years from the Pies, Bulldogs, Geelong etc etc and they have always benefited from this and we are only only first year in benefiting from the likes of Mills, Heeney and maybe Davis ?


    PS - Personally I think Mills be the better player though out of Heeney and Mills
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"

    Comment

    • Steve
      Regular in the Side
      • Jan 2003
      • 676

      Originally posted by Ludwig
      They will concede that they can only achieve a statistical norm for the distribution of draft pick success over a period of time, and every year would produce variations from that norm.
      Which is the same as the previous systems (eg. use a 2nd or 3rd round pick, bidding system etc) - in the long run you win some and lose some, some you pay overs for and others are a steal.

      I'm not sure what all the statistical analysis will arrive at - you look at the top 15 current players for games played and their original draft position, and it would say it will actually skew the data against the higher draft picks.

      Dustin Fletcher 393 - FS, 1992 (technically #3 in 1992 Pre-Season Draft)
      Brent Harvey 380 - #47, 1995
      Adam Goodes 344 - #43, 1997
      Matthew Pavlich 308 - #4, 1999
      Lenny Hayes 293 - #11, 1998
      Dean Cox 287 - #28, 2008 (Rookie Draft)
      Ryan O'Keefe 286 - #56, 1999
      Kane Cornes 286 - #20, 2000
      Corey Enright 282 - #47, 1999
      Nick Dal Santo 278 - #13, 2001
      Nick Riewoldt 277 - #1, 2000
      Darren Glass 270 - #11, 1999
      Gary Ablett 268 - FS (#40, 2001)
      Heath Scotland 268 - #44, 1998
      Paul Chapman 266 - #31, 1999

      So maybe this new model is a good thing - it will say fair value for Heeney, Mills and Dunkley will be a pick in the 40's?

      If they are going to rely on distribution curves and statistical norms, they are also going to fail the acceptance test from the lay footy person.

      Comment

      • ernie koala
        Senior Player
        • May 2007
        • 3251

        Given the stats above, and the Swans generally poor use of first round picks.

        We should be demanding they take all our current and future first round picks, and then plead for nothing higher than pick 30 in return....Happy days!
        Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

        Comment

        • Ludwig
          Veterans List
          • Apr 2007
          • 9359

          Originally posted by Steve
          Which is the same as the previous systems (eg. use a 2nd or 3rd round pick, bidding system etc) - in the long run you win some and lose some, some you pay overs for and others are a steal.

          I'm not sure what all the statistical analysis will arrive at - you look at the top 15 current players for games played and their original draft position, and it would say it will actually skew the data against the higher draft picks.

          Dustin Fletcher 393 - FS, 1992 (technically #3 in 1992 Pre-Season Draft)
          Brent Harvey 380 - #47, 1995
          Adam Goodes 344 - #43, 1997
          Matthew Pavlich 308 - #4, 1999
          Lenny Hayes 293 - #11, 1998
          Dean Cox 287 - #28, 2008 (Rookie Draft)
          Ryan O'Keefe 286 - #56, 1999
          Kane Cornes 286 - #20, 2000
          Corey Enright 282 - #47, 1999
          Nick Dal Santo 278 - #13, 2001
          Nick Riewoldt 277 - #1, 2000
          Darren Glass 270 - #11, 1999
          Gary Ablett 268 - FS (#40, 2001)
          Heath Scotland 268 - #44, 1998
          Paul Chapman 266 - #31, 1999

          So maybe this new model is a good thing - it will say fair value for Heeney, Mills and Dunkley will be a pick in the 40's?

          If they are going to rely on distribution curves and statistical norms, they are also going to fail the acceptance test from the lay footy person.
          That's pretty much the idea, but you do it for every player over say a 15 year period. If it's agreed that games played is a fair representation of value, which it might be for a large sample size, then you would do a polynomial regression data fit on a table of matched data like the one you have. The resulting 'best-fit' curve can be statistically tested for correlation. So you can actually change the inputs to come up with the best correlation of draft picks to performance related statistics, sort of how Champion Data rate player performance.

          Champion Data is probably the best known of sport stats companies trying to come up with a formula to equate player statistics with player value. If everyone is more or less satisfied that they've got the valuation criteria right, then you just have to plug in the draft pick data and away you go.

          This may look complicated, but it's actually the easy part. The hard part is putting a value on the academy investment and bringing that into the system; because there's no data it becomes almost completely subjective. It would be better to let the system run for a number of years as is, then take a look at how things fared, but some excitable types just can't wait.

          I think the AFL is more concerned about passing the Eddie McGuire acceptance test than the lay footy person.

          Comment

          • liz
            Veteran
            Site Admin
            • Jan 2003
            • 16778

            I think to keep things simple you'd just have to look at the probability (based on past data) of players drafted in a certain range of picks playing a certain number of games - say 100 - and take that as an indicator of that player having "made it". As soon as you use actual number of games played you will get big distortions. And trying to assign a quantitative score to a measure of the quality of those games would be nigh on impossible.

            Comment

            • Scottee
              Senior Player
              • Aug 2003
              • 1585

              It is ridiculous for the AFL to equate father sons with Academy selections. They are not comparable, the key difference being the level of investment by the clubs.

              Often, Father Sons are freebies, ie they grew up in another club's zone and developed their own career without any input from the benefiting club.Academies, obviously are a major investment by clubs.

              It is intensley perverse that the only system that has shown to be working in producing talent over the last 25 years needs to be suddenly pulled apart because of the parochial needs of Eddie Maguire and his hangers on for a "fairer" system.Absolute BS!

              It is a classic "kill the goose that laid the golden egg" case. What club would invest in such a system where there are not clear benefits. It is perhaps the only case where the growth of the game and a club's self interest go hand in hand.

              Whilst it is fair to try and balance father son selections with equity considerations because it is good for the game that family lines can continue and reinforce club cultures, the intent is not to provide unfair advantages.The advantages in father son selections are not that great in reality, on most occasions.

              It is absolutely crazy (and dopey) to kill the investment in the game by taking away any advantages in supporting the academies.

              This whole scenario smells like a short term ploy for Eddie to get hold of a Heeney or a Mills before the AFL suddenly "realising" in a couple of years that they will need to provide the incentives again.(Oh, we shouldn't have treated father/sons and academies the same, doh!)

              If the AFL did want to address this issue then perhaps they could look at refunding the investment and continuing the program themselves. In any case, unless phased in over 4 years, its breach of contract.
              We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

              Comment

              • dimelb
                pr. dim-melb; m not f
                • Jun 2003
                • 6889

                Originally posted by Ludwig
                That's pretty much the idea, but you do it for every player over say a 15 year period. If it's agreed that games played is a fair representation of value, which it might be for a large sample size, then you would do a polynomial regression data fit on a table of matched data like the one you have. The resulting 'best-fit' curve can be statistically tested for correlation. So you can actually change the inputs to come up with the best correlation of draft picks to performance related statistics, sort of how Champion Data rate player performance.

                Champion Data is probably the best known of sport stats companies trying to come up with a formula to equate player statistics with player value. If everyone is more or less satisfied that they've got the valuation criteria right, then you just have to plug in the draft pick data and away you go.

                This may look complicated, but it's actually the easy part. The hard part is putting a value on the academy investment and bringing that into the system; because there's no data it becomes almost completely subjective. It would be better to let the system run for a number of years as is, then take a look at how things fared, but some excitable types just can't wait.

                I think the AFL is more concerned about passing the Eddie McGuire acceptance test than the lay footy person.
                I do agree with that last statement.

                But I don't see how any formula could be satisfactory. In the end, it would only be an approximation, and - given the vagaries of the draft - I suspect most clubs would rather take a chance with their own research (especially the Swans) than take a chance on the AFL's Chooklotto, regardless of whatever fancy maths it is dressed in. It will become another cause of contention, especially if it is brought in this year; talk about moving the goalposts!
                He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

                Comment

                • Reggi
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 2718

                  We could give a whole group of 8yo s some scanlens swap cards. Let them swap them and observe which ones they vakue highet and bade it on that.

                  Just as scientific as anything else.
                  You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler

                  Comment

                  • Ludwig
                    Veterans List
                    • Apr 2007
                    • 9359

                    Originally posted by dimelb
                    I don't see how any formula could be satisfactory. In the end, it would only be an approximation
                    I don't think the current system needs tinkering. But based on the article, if the system does change, there will have to be some objective way of deciding how much has to be forfeited for a given nominated player. In the current year, if Heeney is deemed to be worth a pick 8 (by what determination, who knows), then there would be some formula where Sydney would give up their 1st round pick, say 18 plus something else. The question is what is this something else. Part of the process is calculating what an upgrade from pick 18 to pick 8 is worth. If it's not something arbitrary, then a statistics based system will have to do the job, which is what was suggested in the article. The best you can do is get it reasonably close on average over a large population size.

                    Again, it will be overly complicated as well as unnecessary. It will achieve little, other than perhaps placating Eddie McGuire.

                    Comment

                    • liz
                      Veteran
                      Site Admin
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 16778

                      Originally posted by Scottee
                      It is ridiculous for the AFL to equate father sons with Academy selections. They are not comparable, the key difference being the level of investment by the clubs.
                      While your comments regarding the difference in investment are true, the other main difference between the FS system and the academy system is unequal opportunity, and therein lies the rub. They haven't been given the opportunity to invest funds into developing talent that they can they get priority access to. (Of course, you have to disregard the fact that the majority of clubs pretty much ignored the scholarship scheme when it was up and running, and even those who did pay some attention to it, namely Hawthorn and Collingwood, didn't really do more than hunt out a couple of promising looking types. They didn't invest in NSW football in a meaningful way. The scheme wasn't really set up to enable them to do so.)

                      Further inequality comes from the likely frequency of access to draftable players. Even if we assume, for now, that Heeney and Mills aren't representative of what we can expect long term, and that a player of Davis' calibre is the more likely 'norm', the northern clubs will still be expecting to find a decent player a year, or every couple of years. FS is skewed amongst clubs but even those who have benefitted the most have only drafted such a player once every few years.

                      One has to see the point of view of other clubs as to how the scheme is unbalanced. It comes down to whether this is a necessary evil to enable talent in NSW and Queensland to flourish, and how big this draft benefit really is. I doubt it's anything like as important as some of the whingier clubs would have you believe. Player development, club environment and coaching nous seem to be far more significant indicators of success than access to high draft picks (or subsidised draft choices).

                      And, of course, you still have to wonder why it's taken those clubs four years to decide to speak their minds - after the academy clubs have invested millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of time.

                      Comment

                      • Ludwig
                        Veterans List
                        • Apr 2007
                        • 9359

                        As you say Liz, it is true that other clubs were not given the opportunity to have academies. But the academy program was developed to achieve an increase in the overall player pool, which would benefit everyone, and grow the game in a region where AFL has limited following. Under the current proportion of investment between AFL and club, it is not clear who gets the greatest benefit.

                        The northern clubs might get a few plum picks for their efforts, but there should be an overflow of players that will benefit the other clubs even though they didn't make any direct investment in the academies. And if AFL grows in the north, then everyone's pay packet will increase.

                        I think the benefit to the academy clubs under the current system is not all that substantial, especially given their investment over the years. For example, if Heeney had been eligible last year, we would have taken him instead of Zak Jones. Can anyone honestly say that's such a huge benefit that we need to go through all sorts of contortions to fix the system? Despite all the hype around Heeney, I wouldn't be surprised if Jones turned out to be the better player. Only time will tell.

                        Comment

                        • 707
                          Veterans List
                          • Aug 2009
                          • 6204

                          Originally posted by Ludwig
                          There's a headline on AFL website about Darcy Moore titled: Pies set for draft steal
                          Maybe Eddie will ensure the proposed changes don't apply to this years draft as Collingwood would have to pay more for Moore!

                          Comment

                          • cherub
                            Warming the Bench
                            • May 2010
                            • 239

                            That's a given.

                            Comment

                            • Bloody Hell
                              Senior Player
                              • Oct 2006
                              • 3085

                              Originally posted by liz
                              While your comments regarding the difference in investment are true, the other main difference between the FS system and the academy system is unequal opportunity, and therein lies the rub. They haven't been given the opportunity to invest funds into developing talent that they can they get priority access to. (Of course, you have to disregard the fact that the majority of clubs pretty much ignored the scholarship scheme when it was up and running, and even those who did pay some attention to it, namely Hawthorn and Collingwood, didn't really do more than hunt out a couple of promising looking types. They didn't invest in NSW football in a meaningful way. The scheme wasn't really set up to enable them to do so.)

                              Further inequality comes from the likely frequency of access to draftable players. Even if we assume, for now, that Heeney and Mills aren't representative of what we can expect long term, and that a player of Davis' calibre is the more likely 'norm', the northern clubs will still be expecting to find a decent player a year, or every couple of years. FS is skewed amongst clubs but even those who have benefitted the most have only drafted such a player once every few years.

                              One has to see the point of view of other clubs as to how the scheme is unbalanced. It comes down to whether this is a necessary evil to enable talent in NSW and Queensland to flourish, and how big this draft benefit really is. I doubt it's anything like as important as some of the whingier clubs would have you believe. Player development, club environment and coaching nous seem to be far more significant indicators of success than access to high draft picks (or subsidised draft choices).

                              And, of course, you still have to wonder why it's taken those clubs four years to decide to speak their minds - after the academy clubs have invested millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of time.
                              I was under the impression that any club could establsh a "Northern" Academy. In 2008 Collingwood applied to the AFL to have a team in the U18's comp in Sydney that was approved.
                              The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.

                              Comment

                              • barry
                                Veterans List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 8499

                                Maybe nobody wanted to join Collingwoods Academy.

                                The reason academies work is because it s a pathway to the swans not to the AFL.

                                Comment

                                Working...