the points system

[Ludwig]

Wrote these two bits of possibly relevant analysis on pick swaps. Note that we use our own method of valuing the actual worth of picks in the draft (and of players) based on future expected output, so the "points" we discuss are derived from that system. (The main difference is we think based on history that the late 2nd round is nearly as valuable as the first half of it)

Pick swap ? Hawthorn 53 and 58 for GWS 48 #AFLtrades | Hurling People Now

Swapmageddon ? Four swaps involving eight clubs and zero players #AFLtrades | Hurling People Now

I recall reading some good articles early on from this website. I like the value system they have. Could you link to the original articles on the values of each position and how players are values in the analysis.

Are you the one that originated this?

[Mug Punter]

Just wondering do Gold Coast have an academy? haven't heard much about any of their kids.. Or is it just a basket case like their club

A cot case I believe. They have the Gold Coast region and the rest of Queensland apart from Brisbane.

To be fair there have been some decent players out of the Gold Coast juniors - if they had it over the last 15 years they'd have the following players on their list
* Reiwoldt
* Beams
* Tippett
* Sam Gilbert

But really that is a pretty poor crop if you are going to fund a programme to the cost of $1 - 2M a year

As Titus O'Reily said, putting a sport team on the Gold Coast is like invading Russia in the winter, it never works....

[Mug Punter]

I say to the Melbourne Clubs, Tough Luck!!!

The AFL have commissioned a leading academic to come up with a system that everyone agreed was fair and then when there is the slightest advantage gained it gets attacke with a view to being watered down.

The next wave of attack will be to stop the points moving forward but that would just be ridiculous - if Gillon backflips over this then I'll just give up on the sport.

The 197 point flat discount for second rounders plus was a major win for the academies.

The one strategy the AFL could well do to neuter the current situation is enforce only using the same number of picks as per our list places in calculating points. That would stop the trading strategies that we saw this trade week that were quite unexpected to us but clearly a strategy by the northern clubs. With some possible minor increments that would largely mean you have to work within the points you start with and you don't gain nearly as many points.

[liz]

I think the trading was quite fascinating. One of the first things you learn in "negotiation theory" is not just to focus on how to divide the pot, but how to increase the total size of the pot for the parties involved by looking for things that different parties value differently. The idea is that if you give up something you don't value much, but the other party does, both are better off (and you might get something back in return you do value).

Looking at individual trades, this was clearly what was happening. The market's perception of the worth of early picks was greater than the points value ascribed to them. Whether this is down to a flaw in the valuation of the picks, or just a feature of how this year's draft is perceived, only time will tell. But clearly, at an individual trade level, the mismatch between market value and points value allowed clubs to trade and both to think they'd come away better off.

The problem with this is that the total pot wasn't being enhanced. It couldn't be, not in the short term. The pot is the group of players deemed to be draftable by the clubs. Of course, they will all have different assessments of who this pot comprises, but the trade process itself didn't affect the pot. So while all these trades for picks appeared to enhance the value of the clubs participating in the specific trades, they had to be diluting value of all the other players in the game- ie the other clubs not involved in the specific trade. It was still rational for clubs to participate in this. If every other club was doing these trades and one was sitting out, that club would experience its share of the dilution effect with no enhancement from trades it achieved.

The clubs who have net benefitted are the three academy clubs (GC is excluded because it doesn't have any real prospects this year). Because these clubs know exactly the players they want to draft, they have just gained more points to achieve their end goal. It reduces the likelihood of them going into deficit, and thus affecting their trade position for next year. On the other hand, they have given something up, which is a viable alternative to drafting their academy prospects if other clubs launch a "Ludwig" bid. Sydney is most susceptible to this because they have backed themselves in to drafting Mills now and are vulnerable to Carlton bidding pick 1 when he's not a valid pick 1 prospect. If he were. it would make no difference. The signalling effect would be null and void. But it's not in this instance.

GWS and Brisbane are possibly a little less susceptible this year because they have multiple academy prospects and might be prepared to walk away if an unrealistic bid is placed on one of their players.

The tactics will change from year to year, according to the prospects on offer. The ability of the Northern clubs to enhance their position should be most valuable where they have, say, four or five prospects rated as second or third round picks and no intention of drafting them all. So long as other clubs have no clue as to the host club's preference amongst their available players, it won't make sense for them to over bid. Indeed, if a club has very little preference, it might just pick the one or two that it considers represent best value on draft night. Sydney could be in this position in 2015 if Dunkley nominates for the draft AND if the Swans rate him not far off Mills but are resigned to only gaining one of them. In that case, they could afford not to match a "vexatious" Mills bid, and just resign themselves to taking Dunkley instead. I suspect that is not the case, and there is still doubt over whether Dunkley wants to come and whether the Swans rate him high enough to be prepared to go into deficit to recruit them both. But it gives an indication of how things might play out in future years.

[R-1]

A cot case I believe. They have the Gold Coast region and the rest of Queensland apart from Brisbane.

To be fair there have been some decent players out of the Gold Coast juniors - if they had it over the last 15 years they'd have the following players on their list
* Reiwoldt
* Beams
* Tippett
* Sam Gilbert

But really that is a pretty poor crop if you are going to fund a programme to the cost of $1 - 2M a year

As Titus O'Reily said, putting a sport team on the Gold Coast is like invading Russia in the winter, it never works....

Word is Gold Coast haven't invested as much, and they also probably have the toughest zone allocated to them. We spend the most and Brisbane have ramped up belatedly. GWS spend less but have a very lucrative zone. NSW is bigger than Queensland so we're already better off than the QLD sides who are splitting a smaller state. Gold Coast have half of QLD which does include the Gold Coast-Tweed area and southern Brisbane, but their half also includes the far north which is structurally expensive to make use of. Brisbane has more of Brisbane, plus central QLD.

In a few years the different zones and different club capacities to invest in them may become an equalisation issue. It'll be a strong argument for either the four northern clubs to pool the admin and funding and bidding rights of the whole area, or just roll them into an AFL-run and funded system, retaining the club branding to maintain appeal to kids,te systems are proven over a period of time to work in developing talent from the north.

I say to the Melbourne Clubs, Tough Luck!!!

The AFL have commissioned a leading academic to come up with a system that everyone agreed was fair and then when there is the slightest advantage gained it gets attacke with a view to being watered down.

The next wave of attack will be to stop the points moving forward but that would just be ridiculous - if Gillon backflips over this then I'll just give up on the sport.

The 197 point flat discount for second rounders plus was a major win for the academies.

The one strategy the AFL could well do to neuter the current situation is enforce only using the same number of picks as per our list places in calculating points. That would stop the trading strategies that we saw this trade week that were quite unexpected to us but clearly a strategy by the northern clubs. With some possible minor increments that would largely mean you have to work within the points you start with and you don't gain nearly as many points.

It's not even tough luck for them. Hawthorn, West Coast and Collingwood all made pick swaps which benefited them by moving their intended live picks up the draft. What we've got now are two nearly parallel draft pools with different things valued for accessing each of them (high picks for the mainstream draft, lots of points spread over multiple picks for the academy and father-son kids). This creates a stronger contrast in different clubs' goals and creates more room for mutually beneficial exchanges to happen.

[Rod_]

We can all hope that the "Melbourne" clubs do not attempt to get Mills too early. The net result obviously would be that we could / may get a second or third player with the extra points... Pity they don't just lose this selection after we out bid them... That would make the bidding process very interesting.. Not seen that Dunkley has not given a preference for a club and the tigers may be hovering.. (If memory is correct there was some not so happy to finish up with Andrew.. eg requested to retire too early by the club.. May be some legacy not happy with the swans feelings...) Can the Swans still claim him without his preference being given?

Anyway I feel that the swans have done well given Mills is the target and any other player/s will be a bonus.

[R-1]

Clubs won't make above-market bids. That would be incredibly stupid and everyone is collegiate and professional enough to act in their own interests rather than hobble themselves to screw another club. They will bid what players are worth, and if we don't match then they're entitled to have those players.

Also, if they bid, that *establishes* market value, like definitionally.

Complaining about where clubs bid is the flipside to complaining about "points loopholes".

[Reggi]

Gold coast potentially have a great zone. Just needs some nurturing. Afl is very popular in FNQ Charlie dixon and Harbrow are frim Cairns

Gws zone is an utter rort and needs to stop

[707]

Ok folks, spent some time with a spreadsheet and plugged in our likely worse scenario. The movement of picks upwards was really interesting as multiple picks were collapsed into one high pick. Our later picks rose by 9 places adding substantially to our Dunkley points. It was why we worked to get pick 69 from the Bullies, it became pick 58 eventually.

The key positions I took were Mills bid on at 3 which is as high as he will be bid on. Then I got a little soft on the other four key academy players, if they go higher our position is better, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17.

That leaves us with picks 45 (347), 54 (220), 58 (170) & 63 (112), total 849 sufficient for pick 22.

[royboy42]

- - - Updated - - -

Not just you.


The last day for Father Son nomination is October 30[/QUOTE]

[Auntie.Gerald]

Ok folks, spent some time with a spreadsheet and plugged in our likely worse scenario. The movement of picks upwards was really interesting as multiple picks were collapsed into one high pick. Our later picks rose by 9 places adding substantially to our Dunkley points. It was why we worked to get pick 69 from the Bullies, it became pick 58 eventually.

The key positions I took were Mills bid on at 3 which is as high as he will be bid on. Then I got a little soft on the other four key academy players, if they go higher our position is better, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17.

That leaves us with picks 45 (347), 54 (220), 58 (170) & 63 (112), total 849 sufficient for pick 22.

thanks 707

So Mills at pick 3

and Dunks at pick 22 or later will see us looking pretty

[Auntie.Gerald]

im guessing this becomes the thread now for chatting re draft picks etc

just thinking out loud - Luke Parker went at pick 40..........he was more skilful then young Dunks and could certainly kick a goal better and kick in general play

so my question is why then do we think Dunks will go earlier then pick 40 ?

why on earth did Parker go so late ?

[Scottee]

Ok folks, spent some time with a spreadsheet and plugged in our likely worse scenario. The movement of picks upwards was really interesting as multiple picks were collapsed into one high pick. Our later picks rose by 9 places adding substantially to our Dunkley points. It was why we worked to get pick 69 from the Bullies, it became pick 58 eventually.

The key positions I took were Mills bid on at 3 which is as high as he will be bid on. Then I got a little soft on the other four key academy players, if they go higher our position is better, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 10, Keays at 14, Hipwood at 17.

That leaves us with picks 45 (347), 54 (220), 58 (170) & 63 (112), total 849 sufficient for pick 22.

Well done 707! I was wondering what you envisage as a worst case scenario. Does that include Melbourne bidding on Mills, missing, then bidding on Hopper, missing, then,Kennedy ,missing and then getting say Parish thereby raising their own later picks (and all the non-academy clubs lower picks) by about 6 picks. Then Essendon doing the same with Keays, Hipworth and Himmelberg?

Big picture wise it would seem that the Academy clubs will all be fighting it out at the bottom of the draft by the end of the academy picks.

The other part of the scenario is the feasibility of clubs bidding a few of places higher than the correct position (who can argue difinitively about that) for the advantages of raising the lower picks. What does that do to the 20% discount. It would appear to reverse the situation into a penalty depending on the ranking of the pick.

[R-1]

I recall reading some good articles early on from this website. I like the value system they have. Could you link to the original articles on the values of each position and how players are values in the analysis.

Are you the one that originated this?

I'm one of the two authors yeah. Glad you're interested! This post explains the guts of what we're trying - Valuing trades, draft picks and players ? a review of the theory | Hurling People Now

[barry]

Gold coast potentially have a great zone. Just needs some nurturing. Afl is very popular in FNQ Charlie dixon and Harbrow are frim Cairns

Gws zone is an utter rort and needs to stop

Only stop GWS zone once its proven to be a rort. Im happy for them to keep it. Academies are a great thing for footy in NSW. Maybe the barrasi line should be the boundary.