2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[liz]

How they can possibly think they have sufficient data to use any single measure to determine differentials between individual picks is beyond me. Most would accept that the last two or three years (at least) draftees are too early in their careers for their relative value to be determined. And go back to the 1990s and the draft was even less scientific than now and arguably irrelevant.

With barely 10 data points for any given draft pick, how do they account for:

- the effect of the draft pre-selections for two seasons while the Suns and Giants were established
- the players drafted as mini-draft selections
- injuries - do you retrospectively devalue players like Trengove and Gumbleton (both no 2 picks) because injuries have not been kind to them
- the fact that a top flight key forward will command a higher salary than even the best tier of midfielders (unless they are Ablett and assisted by a new club wanting to throw bucket loads at them)

[satchmopugdog]

How they can possibly think they have sufficient data to use any single measure to determine differentials between individual picks is beyond me. Most would accept that the last two or three years (at least) draftees are too early in their careers for their relative value to be determined. And go back to the 1990s and the draft was even less scientific than now and arguably irrelevant.

With barely 10 data points for any given draft pick, how do they account for:

- the effect of the draft pre-selections for two seasons while the Suns and Giants were established
- the players drafted as mini-draft selections
- injuries - do you retrospectively devalue players like Trengove and Gumbleton (both no 2 picks) because injuries have not been kind to them
- the fact that a top flight key forward will command a higher salary than even the best tier of midfielders (unless they are Ablett and assisted by a new club wanting to throw bucket loads at them)

Yet again the voice of reason Liz

[707]

Just plugged in the numbers on a spreadsheet, as expected the value of the discount is minimal at both ends of the draft and flat across the 11-41 pick range at an upgrade of 7 draft positions. Here's what it says about the value of the 25% discount.

Pick 1 can be drafted for the value of pick 3, an upgrade of 2 places
Pick 2 can be drafted for the value of pick 5, an upgrade of 3 places
Pick 3 can be drafted for the value of pick 7, an upgrade of 4 places
Pick 4 can be drafted for the value of pick 9, an upgrade of 5 places
Pick 5 can be drafted for the value of pick 10, an upgrade of 5 places
Pick 6 can be drafted for the value of pick 12, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 7 can be drafted for the value of pick 13, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 8, 9, 10 can be drafted for the value of pick 14, 15, 16, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 11, 12 through to pick 41 etc can be drafted for the value of pick 18, 19 etc an upgrade of 7 places

We get a 7 pick upgrade on players bid on between 11 and 41, diminishing after that. The Premier has pick 18 of course.

So the key things to remember here are that the four northern clubs get an advantage in the draft over their southern rivals by being able to lock in Academy players if they choose, they get players who are local and who are thoroughly committed to their team, they get a discount of 7 draft positions on the bulk of the most important part of the draft, they get a discount of 2-6 positions on the top 10.

Our problem comes because we have multiple top enders available this year and are expected to finish high on the ladder. So the higher up the draft board Mills and Dunkley go during the year and the higher we go on the ladder, the pain rachets up. Conversely, if Mills and or Dunkley slip down the rankings and god forbid we don't end up playing the last day in September the less the pain.

Not ideal but probably the best we could expect from the McGuire hit team.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I dont think we will want to add Dunkley to the list

I think we will take Mills only based on the depth of our inside talent and considering we need to keep developing and attracting one or two more outside mids

We have Parker, Mitchell, Kennedy, Bird, Heeney plus Mills that is 6 genuine and high quality inside players............then you have McGlynn, Jack, Hannes, Macca who match up parts of the game inside and Robinson developing........even Marsh, Jones and Rampe may find more time in the middle for match ups

[S.S. Bleeder]

I agree. The credibility of the proposed bidding system is crucially dependent on the points scale. In the AFL article it says: Will the AFL's new bidding system be fairer? - AFL.com.au

"Under the new system, draft picks from 1-74 would be allocated points to indicate their respective values, with pick No.1 being worth 3000 points, pick No.2 worth 2517 and so on in a sliding scale. This scale is based on data relating to the average player salaries of each pick from the year 2000 onwards.

The decision to use average salary as the data point for determining the value attached to each draft was sensible and logical. It threw up a result that was intuitive but also scientific."

But is it? When they say 'average salaries' have they used average for each pick in the same year of contract following the pick? For example, Year 3 or Year 4 (as player salaries are set in the first 2 years). How much difference would it make to look at different years of contract? Do all players mature and develop at the same rate after their pick and what does that mean for their 'value' at the time of the pick? And have they used real salaries by adjusting for salary inflation with general salary increases over the period?

And in any case, is the simple arithmetic mean the right data to use - as they are likely to be skewed upwards by outlier highly paid players. Did they also look at the median salaries for each pick and how would the use of those influence the points scale? (My guess is that it might compress the points scale compared to the one used, but that might be wrong.)

There is so little information provided on which to judge if the points scale is 'scientific' and yet it is critical to the outcome. I hope the club has been provided with all the background assumptions and data and is getting these rigorously examined by a statistical expert.

Great points Meg.

It is important to note as well that the high draft picks, ie. picks 1-5, generally go to the poorer performing sides (ie. Melb, Saints & Dogs). These sides usually have less top performers on big salaries in their sides and as a result can afford to pay these players more (or more accurately, they have to pay these players more to reach the 90% of the salary cap) thus increasing the points of these selections.

I wonder if this has been taken into account? I bet it hasn't.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I laughed, but was not surprised, when I read that some clubs without academies claim they deserve the same discount for father/son picks. No Cookies | Herald Sun

'The AFL is considering applying a 25 per cent discount to academy players and either a 25 or 15 per cent on father-sons.'

'Some recruiters yesterday said they would lobby the AFL to keep the father-son and academy discounts in line. �We invest a lot of time and effort (in father-son programs), so it should be the same. No doubt about that, it must be consistent,� one chief scout said.'

I know some clubs do run father/son training programs, but to suggest these involve anything like the resource commitment invested into the academies is a joke.

I'd be happy if they applied a 25% discount to F/S selections but the academy discount should always be higher than F/S discount because of the financial investment. I'd like to see a 25% discount for F/S and 40% for academies.

[Ludwig]

How they can possibly think they have sufficient data to use any single measure to determine differentials between individual picks is beyond me. Most would accept that the last two or three years (at least) draftees are too early in their careers for their relative value to be determined. And go back to the 1990s and the draft was even less scientific than now and arguably irrelevant.

Completely agree. The methodology was designed to fit a desired outcome. Without curve fitting, we would see the jagged line with all its anomalies and so much of what you say would become obvious to all to see. I think the AFL should release the raw data so others can do their own statistical analysis. The Standard Deviations must be quite substantial I would think.

Just plugged in the numbers on a spreadsheet, as expected the value of the discount is minimal at both ends of the draft and flat across the 11-41 pick range at an upgrade of 7 draft positions.

Our problem comes because we have multiple top enders available this year and are expected to finish high on the ladder. So the higher up the draft board Mills and Dunkley go during the year and the higher we go on the ladder, the pain rachets up. Conversely, if Mills and or Dunkley slip down the rankings and god forbid we don't end up playing the last day in September the less the pain.

Sorry you had to do all that work 707, because the AFL published the table on this with their pdf. See last page.

You are right that the impact is particularly onerous when it just so happens that when a club is going through a successful on field period and also just so happens to have more than one top rated draft prospect in that year. I am sure that if Darcy Moore was draft eligible in a year that Collingwood expected to be a premiership contender we wouldn't be hearing a peep about such a proposal.

Another problem with the proposal is that it undermines the original intent of the academy program, which was in part an equalisation measure to offset the disadvantages of being in non traditional AFL territory. The proposal changes the academies to primarily a player development and feeder system for the AFL which is operated and paid for by the northern clubs.

[The Big Cat]

The biggest problem with the proposed system is that the "value" of an academy player is based on where the team finishes on the ladder. Finish low on the ladder and the AFL finds no problem in getting a potential gun for peanuts (maybe even earning bonus points via the discount). Finish high up and the money you spent on development is ignored. So the AFL is effectively saying "we have no problem with you having an academy, we only have a problem if you are a successful team."

[rojo]

Once again, the traditional clubs, led by perennial victim Eddie McGuire, are whingeing about a so-called unfair advantage while overlooking the fact that everything about the competition is stacked in their favour.

Love it

Me too!

[CureTheSane]

I don't know.
I've looked at this in a few ways, and I'm not sure there's anyway that we won't be seriously disadvantaged by this proposal.
Wonder if the Swans would have bothered with the academy under these rules from the start?

This is the start of the negotiations.
The AFL has pseudo released this to gauge public sentiment.
They'll water it down a bit, the Swans will come out with big smiles and all will be well in the world again.

I don't see any outrage from the Swans about this, but that follows their recent style.
I hope the club isn't being sucked in to the 'need' for this because of short term potential stars.

[tasmania60]

Wheres the loyalty ,we cant let our champion fathers sons play for other teams, its not right i know other clubs are pressuring us ,and the AFL but its not right if hes good enough give him a game !

[Steve]

They really should have just simplified their agenda and aimed to have clubs pay a "fairer" price, rather than bow to the pressure and feel they had to come up with a scientifically precise formula which produced an "indisputably fair" one.

What was the main issue for the noisiest complainants? Clubs getting one of the top talents in the draft and only using one of the last picks in the first round? Clubs gaining a second top talent in the same year and using an even lesser pick to get that second player?

Reasonable concerns - both of which could have been solved with one of many far more simple approaches.

I actually think clubs will ultimately be conservative in their bidding anyway, meaning clubs will probably end up paying less than what a lot of informed people would judge the actual 'fair value' to be. Even more reason why over complicating the solution is not warranted.

If Mills ends up being a true contender No.1, then obviously Sydney would match any bid. So then the club with the first pick has to choose whether to make the Swans pay the highest price possible, but by doing so highlight that whoever they choose next (after their bid is matched) is not who they really want - or do they do the more positive thing and pick the second best player but talk them up as their preferred choice?

For that reason I can see players slide quite a few spots before a club actually bids on them - which would be to our absolute benefit with Mills (and probably also Dunkley).

It could be a real charade if the bids just become a case of being the first club to say "stuff it, let's put in a bid now, someone has to make them pay more than where this is heading".