If Adelaide offer us picks 8 &15 for pick 4

[kosifantutti]

According to the draft points table, the deal would favour us but that early in the draft you can talk about specific players who are likely to be available.

Also if we were interested we could wait until our pick when we know exactly who’s available at pick 4.

[takeaway]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

Obviously there is no maths to support "certain guns" at any pick, but there would be good data to support higher picks being more likely to become better players. It would be interesting to see "games played" for each pick and sets of 1-5 - 5-10 etc over the years.

Who qualifies as a "gun" is a highly debatable discussion in itself. Jack Newnes is on track to play 250 AFL games, but is never going to be elite… we don't need 3 more Newnes, we need a Dustin Martin (Rankine).

It sounds like this draft has a particularly strong top 6, so trading out of it could really hurt down the track.

Mathematically speaking, you contradicted yourself, maths supports everything. In actual fact nearly all of the clauses in your post can be represented in math. I'm guessing there are clubs relying on the expertise of mathematicians to augment thier decision making.

You can use all the maths you like, no pick is a certainty… of course data is used to help with selections, but mathematically speaking every single club has stuffed up first round selections many times, there is no sure thing in selecting players.

No mathematician or scientist would bet their career on a particular draft range (1 - 6) of players becoming 'certain stars" as there are far too many variables.

You are asking

"Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns"

A: There is none.

I think you are just nit picking skeptics post as you know very well that he is not claiming a "certain gun" will result, he believes the chances are higher with a 1-6 pick in this draft rather than 7-20 pick… a view held by many keen draft watchers.

I agree. Some sort of guide re draft pick values can be found on the Draftguru' site at https://www.draftguru.com.au/, using the "Actual Draft Pick Value Comparison" box. You can exclude or include recent drafts, as the more recently picked players have not yet established their values.
I was quite surprised at how the player success indicators correlate quite closely with the actual draft picks. It was clear that on the whole, the higher the pick, the better value the player gives the club.

[Cairnsman]

The goal isn’t to have as many first round picks as possible but to draft a gun.

So you are absolutely certain the numbers fall our way with your outlined strategy?

Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns.

The variable of 2 on accuracy is interesting. Does this suggest the maths has a built in an error of 2 so the top 6 are absolute certain guns?

I wonder what the numbers on 7 and 8 are?

Are there any mathematicians in the house?

Obviously there is no maths to support "certain guns" at any pick, but there would be good data to support higher picks being more likely to become better players. It would be interesting to see "games played" for each pick and sets of 1-5 - 5-10 etc over the years.

Who qualifies as a "gun" is a highly debatable discussion in itself. Jack Newnes is on track to play 250 AFL games, but is never going to be elite… we don't need 3 more Newnes, we need a Dustin Martin (Rankine).

It sounds like this draft has a particularly strong top 6, so trading out of it could really hurt down the track.

Mathematically speaking, you contradicted yourself, maths supports everything. In actual fact nearly all of the clauses in your post can be represented in math. I'm guessing there are clubs relying on the expertise of mathematicians to augment thier decision making.

You can use all the maths you like, no pick is a certainty… of course data is used to help with selections, but mathematically speaking every single club has stuffed up first round selections many times, there is no sure thing in selecting players.

No mathematician or scientist would bet their career on a particular draft range (1 - 6) of players becoming 'certain stars" as there are far too many variables.

You are asking

"Id like to see the maths/science behind the claim that the top 6-8 are certain guns"

A: There is none.

I think you are just nit picking skeptics post as you know very well that he is not claiming a "certain gun" will result, he believes the chances are higher with a 1-6 pick in this draft rather than 7-20 pick… a view held by many keen draft watchers.

It's ok if you don't understand maths.

[dragit]

According to the draft points table, the deal would favour us but that early in the draft you can talk about specific players who are likely to be available.

Also if we were interested we could wait until our pick when we know exactly who’s available at pick 4.

Yup I think the points table goes out the window in cases like this, it's only really a compo and FS guide… 10 third rounders are worth more than pick #1, but it means nothing.

[skeptic]

I think what may have been missed is that it’s the opinion of many draft watchers/journalists that the first 6-8 (depending on the opinion) players of this draft are standouts to the rest.

Having pick 4, it’s highly likely that we will take one of Rankine, King or Smith... pbly and that they will all be gone by 8. Along with Walsh and Luk, they are the highest rated players of the draft.

By trading down, yes your getting more picks, but those picks are outside the standout talent so IMO (and I never claimed this to be fact) the swap doesn’t hold up.

Obviously there’s no way to be completely sure as proof can only be measured in hindsight and even that could be misleading... but the key principle here is that you want an elite player and diluting the pick reduces your chances of getting one.

You go back to 02...
Most of the data had Hodge, Ball and Judd in varying orders going in the top 3...
Yes you had Bartel, Dal Santo, Johnson going in the middle but you had misses their too.

[skeptic]

Just to add, I’m not adverse to trading pick four for more picks... but if I did, it would be for more than just one extra

[Ghost Like]

If GC do want our pick#4 & give away their next 3 picks whilst promising to leave Rozee dangling after taking Lukosious, Rankine & King. Leaves us with a very good chance of getting Smith with pick#6, hoping Port take Rozee.
Otherwise wait for the night & the first 3 picks to unfold.

[cwrcyn]

So 8,13, & 21 for 4, 36, & 46? tempting, but if we have an absolute target in mind for pick 4, then obviously the rest is irrelevant.

[skeptic]

So 8,13, & 21 for 4, 36, & 46? tempting, but if we have an absolute target in mind for pick 4, then obviously the rest is irrelevant.

But you’d be dong that trade so that another club guarantees a player they think will be a gun...

Quite literally all your gaining is a draft position that’s improved by 44 spots...

Improve the draft position by 44 spots in exchange for passing up on the most highly rated players... hope that a champion player falls into your lap in that isolated period of time

I really can’t see how ppl could entertain this as a good deal

[desertsaint]

i asked this guy if he would take that deal.
you can guess what he said.

[Cairnsman]

I think what may have been missed is that it’s the opinion of many draft watchers/journalists that the first 6-8 (depending on the opinion) players of this draft are standouts to the rest.

Having pick 4, it’s highly likely that we will take one of Rankine, King or Smith... pbly and that they will all be gone by 8. Along with Walsh and Luk, they are the highest rated players of the draft.

By trading down, yes your getting more picks, but those picks are outside the standout talent so IMO (and I never claimed this to be fact) the swap doesn’t hold up.

Obviously there’s no way to be completely sure as proof can only be measured in hindsight and even that could be misleading... but the key principle here is that you want an elite player and diluting the pick reduces your chances of getting one.

You go back to 02...
Most of the data had Hodge, Ball and Judd in varying orders going in the top 3...
Yes you had Bartel, Dal Santo, Johnson going in the middle but you had misses their too.

I would have taken Bartel and Dal or even Sam Mitchel over Luke Ball in a 2 for 1 swap in a heart beat. A 2 for 1 deal that year would have delivered way more value.

There are more A graders and premiership players in the 2nd and 3rd round from that year than in the first round. It's intoxicating to throw all of your chips at that once in a generation player and here is what pick 4 has delivered since that draft.

2001 Graham Polak
2002 Tim Walsh
2003 Colin Sylvia
2004 Richard Tambling
2005 Josh Kennedy
2006 Matthew Leuenberger
2007 Cale Morton
2008 Hamish Hartlett
2009 Anthony Moribito
2010 Andrew Gaff
2011 Will Hoskin-Elliot
2012 Jimmy Toumpas
2013 Marcus Bontempilli
2014 Jarrod Pickett
2015 Clayton Oliver
2016 Ben Ainsworth
2017 Luke Davies-Uniacke

[saintbob]

The more I read about Smith, the more I’d be happy to keep pick 4.
Sounds like a good kid and an even better player.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Pretty sure Max King will be a Saint in 2019. Well...

[guitars4]

i asked this guy if he would take that deal.
you can guess what he said.

"I'd say your'e dreamin"

[skeptic]

I think what may have been missed is that it’s the opinion of many draft watchers/journalists that the first 6-8 (depending on the opinion) players of this draft are standouts to the rest.

Having pick 4, it’s highly likely that we will take one of Rankine, King or Smith... pbly and that they will all be gone by 8. Along with Walsh and Luk, they are the highest rated players of the draft.

By trading down, yes your getting more picks, but those picks are outside the standout talent so IMO (and I never claimed this to be fact) the swap doesn’t hold up.

Obviously there’s no way to be completely sure as proof can only be measured in hindsight and even that could be misleading... but the key principle here is that you want an elite player and diluting the pick reduces your chances of getting one.

You go back to 02...
Most of the data had Hodge, Ball and Judd in varying orders going in the top 3...
Yes you had Bartel, Dal Santo, Johnson going in the middle but you had misses their too.

I would have taken Bartel and Dal or even Sam Mitchel over Luke Ball in a 2 for 1 swap in a heart beat. A 2 for 1 deal that year would have delivered way more value.

There are more A graders and premiership players in the 2nd and 3rd round from that year than in the first round. It's intoxicating to throw all of your chips at that once in a generation player and here is what pick 4 has delivered since that draft.

2001 Graham Polak
2002 Tim Walsh
2003 Colin Sylvia
2004 Richard Tambling
2005 Josh Kennedy
2006 Matthew Leuenberger
2007 Cale Morton
2008 Hamish Hartlett
2009 Anthony Moribito
2010 Andrew Gaff
2011 Will Hoskin-Elliot
2012 Jimmy Toumpas
2013 Marcus Bontempilli
2014 Jarrod Pickett
2015 Clayton Oliver
2016 Ben Ainsworth
2017 Luke Davies-Uniacke

Yeah if you got it right... Around those picks is also Luke Molan, Brent Reilly, Richard Cole, Ashley Watson etc the swap doesn’t do anything to help you.
Further to that, no Saints fans were complaining about Luke Ball before he got OP and lost his speed

As far as pick 4 specifically goes there are some good players there... I think it’s a more reasonable bet to have a go at a champ with pick 4 then to reasonably expect that if pick 4 is no certainty, we could pluck x2 250 game champs with 8 and 13. Especially given there is an emphasis on the top 6 or so

Look at the end of the day, you’re not wrong CM because the ultimate factor is who we pick. If we pick a once in a generation player with pick 60 like we pretty much did with Sam Fisher (once in gen is overstating but you get my drift) then the draft is an overwhelming success.

At the end of the day, we’re just debating strategy. I understand your point but personally I prefer mine in this instance

[dragit]

Pretty sure Max King will be a Saint in 2019. Well...

Will be Smith or Rankine.

You'll nail it eventually.

[skeptic]

Pretty sure Max King will be a Saint in 2019. Well...

Will be Smith or Rankine.

You'll nail it eventually.

My sources tell me that it will be one of Smith, Rankine or King. Or Luk + Walsh if they slip. Alternatively Rozee or Ben King are a chance too

Lock it in

[Cairnsman]

I think what may have been missed is that it’s the opinion of many draft watchers/journalists that the first 6-8 (depending on the opinion) players of this draft are standouts to the rest.

Having pick 4, it’s highly likely that we will take one of Rankine, King or Smith... pbly and that they will all be gone by 8. Along with Walsh and Luk, they are the highest rated players of the draft.

By trading down, yes your getting more picks, but those picks are outside the standout talent so IMO (and I never claimed this to be fact) the swap doesn’t hold up.

Obviously there’s no way to be completely sure as proof can only be measured in hindsight and even that could be misleading... but the key principle here is that you want an elite player and diluting the pick reduces your chances of getting one.

You go back to 02...
Most of the data had Hodge, Ball and Judd in varying orders going in the top 3...
Yes you had Bartel, Dal Santo, Johnson going in the middle but you had misses their too.

I would have taken Bartel and Dal or even Sam Mitchel over Luke Ball in a 2 for 1 swap in a heart beat. A 2 for 1 deal that year would have delivered way more value.

There are more A graders and premiership players in the 2nd and 3rd round from that year than in the first round. It's intoxicating to throw all of your chips at that once in a generation player and here is what pick 4 has delivered since that draft.

2001 Graham Polak
2002 Tim Walsh
2003 Colin Sylvia
2004 Richard Tambling
2005 Josh Kennedy
2006 Matthew Leuenberger
2007 Cale Morton
2008 Hamish Hartlett
2009 Anthony Moribito
2010 Andrew Gaff
2011 Will Hoskin-Elliot
2012 Jimmy Toumpas
2013 Marcus Bontempilli
2014 Jarrod Pickett
2015 Clayton Oliver
2016 Ben Ainsworth
2017 Luke Davies-Uniacke

Yeah if you got it right... Around those picks is also Luke Molan, Brent Reilly, Richard Cole, Ashley Watson etc the swap doesn’t do anything to help you.
Further to that, no Saints fans were complaining about Luke Ball before he got OP and lost his speed

As far as pick 4 specifically goes there are some good players there... I think it’s a more reasonable bet to have a go at a champ with pick 4 then to reasonably expect that if pick 4 is no certainty, we could pluck x2 250 game champs with 8 and 13. Especially given there is an emphasis on the top 6 or so

Look at the end of the day, you’re not wrong CM because the ultimate factor is who we pick. If we pick a once in a generation player with pick 60 like we pretty much did with Sam Fisher (once in gen is overstating but you get my drift) then the draft is an overwhelming success.

At the end of the day, we’re just debating strategy. I understand your point but personally I prefer mine in this instance

Arguably there isn't one "once in a generation player" on that list but who do think has given the best value? I'm saying Josh Kennedy of the players up to about 2010 and it's too early to tell about the players after that but Bonts maybe but has dropped away since 2016 and Gaff wasn't worth the money being discussed this year. Hoskin-Elliot and Oliver look likely but too early to judge.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Bunch of Captain Hindsights some of you blokes. Saints are still undecided, but Max King firming every day.

There is a big difference between my opinion and what the Saints actually want to do. Keep trying boys.

[SuperDuper]

Some sort of guide re draft pick values can be found on the Draftguru' site at https://www.draftguru.com.au/, using the "Actual Draft Pick Value Comparison" box. You can exclude or include recent drafts, as the more recently picked players have not yet established their values.
I was quite surprised at how the player success indicators correlate quite closely with the actual draft picks. It was clear that on the whole, the higher the pick, the better value the player gives the club.

this could actually provide support for our trade of 28 for 36+46. If you look at the data, picks 21-30 have essentially the same return as picks 30-50, then it drops off after pick 50. So more often than not, 21-50 is a relatively even bunch of players. So getting 2 in that range doubles your odds, even if those picks come a little later.

I wonder if that simple bit of maths/data helped motivate that pick swap?

[ace]

I would pass...
The consistent feedback across all media and sports writers is the top 6-8 are a clear standout.

You can’t just assume that by having more picks, we’ll automatically select 200 game players. If we have someone that we really rate, and think will be a gun... get him.

What we need is a future star. One elite player, the next Riewoldt standard player and it’s all worth it even if the rest are duds.

The water the picks down strategy isn’t an overly successful one

If the club is in the position that it can’t trust it’s own judgment to pick a highly elite player in what is rated the best draft since 02... we may as well pack it now.

In terms of trading, I would only consider dealing with Port

The only problem I have is that it looks like the saints are keen o a guy who some suggest will go in the teens.
Could it be Brad Howard but a lot worse (taken at 27 with a second round pick) all over again where we take someone early that no-one else was even looking at.
If we keep pick 4 we must take someone in the best 6.

[avid]

It looks clear, by common consent, that the top 5 are the ones we want to pick from - Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, Smith and Max King. I'd be happy with any of them, but very unhappy if we didn't get one of them.
If Port want to be pickier, we can leverage that, giving the 4 for their 5 and ?. That's a win for us.
If GC want to get 4 for their 6 + + , that's a risk, but maybe not if we know Rozee is taken in the first 5.
If Adelaide wants our 4 for 8 + +, we should say NO.

Like I know something about this.

[skeptic]

I would pass...
The consistent feedback across all media and sports writers is the top 6-8 are a clear standout.

You can’t just assume that by having more picks, we’ll automatically select 200 game players. If we have someone that we really rate, and think will be a gun... get him.

What we need is a future star. One elite player, the next Riewoldt standard player and it’s all worth it even if the rest are duds.

The water the picks down strategy isn’t an overly successful one

If the club is in the position that it can’t trust it’s own judgment to pick a highly elite player in what is rated the best draft since 02... we may as well pack it now.

In terms of trading, I would only consider dealing with Port

The only problem I have is that it looks like the saints are keen o a guy who some suggest will go in the teens.
Could it be Brad Howard but a lot worse (taken at 27 with a second round pick) all over again where we take someone early that no-one else was even looking at.
If we keep pick 4 we must take someone in the best 6.

You’ve lost me. Everything I’ve read suggests King, Smith or Rankine who most more or less have in the top 6.
Who are u referring too?

[skeptic]

I think what may have been missed is that it’s the opinion of many draft watchers/journalists that the first 6-8 (depending on the opinion) players of this draft are standouts to the rest.

Having pick 4, it’s highly likely that we will take one of Rankine, King or Smith... pbly and that they will all be gone by 8. Along with Walsh and Luk, they are the highest rated players of the draft.

By trading down, yes your getting more picks, but those picks are outside the standout talent so IMO (and I never claimed this to be fact) the swap doesn’t hold up.

Obviously there’s no way to be completely sure as proof can only be measured in hindsight and even that could be misleading... but the key principle here is that you want an elite player and diluting the pick reduces your chances of getting one.

You go back to 02...
Most of the data had Hodge, Ball and Judd in varying orders going in the top 3...
Yes you had Bartel, Dal Santo, Johnson going in the middle but you had misses their too.

I would have taken Bartel and Dal or even Sam Mitchel over Luke Ball in a 2 for 1 swap in a heart beat. A 2 for 1 deal that year would have delivered way more value.

There are more A graders and premiership players in the 2nd and 3rd round from that year than in the first round. It's intoxicating to throw all of your chips at that once in a generation player and here is what pick 4 has delivered since that draft.

2001 Graham Polak
2002 Tim Walsh
2003 Colin Sylvia
2004 Richard Tambling
2005 Josh Kennedy
2006 Matthew Leuenberger
2007 Cale Morton
2008 Hamish Hartlett
2009 Anthony Moribito
2010 Andrew Gaff
2011 Will Hoskin-Elliot
2012 Jimmy Toumpas
2013 Marcus Bontempilli
2014 Jarrod Pickett
2015 Clayton Oliver
2016 Ben Ainsworth
2017 Luke Davies-Uniacke

Yeah if you got it right... Around those picks is also Luke Molan, Brent Reilly, Richard Cole, Ashley Watson etc the swap doesn’t do anything to help you.
Further to that, no Saints fans were complaining about Luke Ball before he got OP and lost his speed

As far as pick 4 specifically goes there are some good players there... I think it’s a more reasonable bet to have a go at a champ with pick 4 then to reasonably expect that if pick 4 is no certainty, we could pluck x2 250 game champs with 8 and 13. Especially given there is an emphasis on the top 6 or so

Look at the end of the day, you’re not wrong CM because the ultimate factor is who we pick. If we pick a once in a generation player with pick 60 like we pretty much did with Sam Fisher (once in gen is overstating but you get my drift) then the draft is an overwhelming success.

At the end of the day, we’re just debating strategy. I understand your point but personally I prefer mine in this instance

Arguably there isn't one "once in a generation player" on that list but who do think has given the best value? I'm saying Josh Kennedy of the players up to about 2010 and it's too early to tell about the players after that but Bonts maybe but has dropped away since 2016 and Gaff wasn't worth the money being discussed this year. Hoskin-Elliot and Oliver look likely but too early to judge.

To be honest, I think you’ve answered your own question pretty well.

Kennedy, Bont and Gaff are the standouts with the latter two not quite living up to their respective reputations though still good players

WCE killed it with that trade...

[saintsRrising]

There is a big difference between my opinion and what the Saints actually want to do.

Well at last we are in violent agreement.