2002-->2007 Draft ladder (Final results posted)

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Re: 2002-->2005 Draft ladder

2006/2007 Draft ladder.

Last one, and the summary of who has drafted best recently to follow shortly.

Port Adelaide 5
Geelong 5
Melbourne 4
Essendon 4
Kangaroos 4
Carlton 4
Collingwood 3
Richmond 2
St Kilda 1
West Coast 1
Brisbane 1
Western Bulldogs 1
Hawthorn 0
Fremantle 0
Adelaide 0
Sydney 0


There is no ladder of who recruited kids who haven't played any games yet since it is too early for this draft.

Again Richmond is about average in this draft. Fremantle and Sydney looking pretty bad again, but it's early days.

Port have turned their form around. Have they changed recruiters recently?


Interesting that Collingwood and Adelaide, with all the money in the world, didn't pick up anything instantly successful.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Re: 2002-->2007 Draft ladder

Final placings: 2002-2007 draft ladder.



I have taken all the draftees in the national drafts since 2002, and added up how many games they have played for their clubs so far.



Ladder based upon number of games their national draft recruits have played:



West Coast 188

St Kilda 183

Geelong 158

Carlton 133

Hawthorn 132

Melbourne 131

Fremantle 130

Western Bulldogs 129

Essendon 128

Richmond 125

Collingwood 113

Adelaide 111

Brisbane 111

Port Adelaide 104

Kangaroos 99

Sydney 98




Some surprises in terms of which clubs actually know how to recruit!



Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and Melbourne are artificially high since they all had lean periods and so played more kids than average.

The top three clubs were real standouts.

The bottom two were pretty poor (and Sydney hasn’t just, ‘not played’ their kids. Their kids are nearly all duds.)



I have then looked at the current recruiting budget (which doesn’t really apply all the way back to 2002, but it gives a rough guide), and divided it by the number of games it has produced from draftees. This shows somewhat, how much spending on recruiting actually effects results. My conclusion is that more money has stuff all effect on your general drafting success:



Draftee games Recruiting dollar spent per game.



Richmond 125 $1144

St Kilda 183 $1169

Geelong 158 $1645

Melbourne 131 $1687

Carlton 133 $1744

West Coast 188 $1824

Essendon 128 $2226

Western Bulldogs 129 $2472

Kangaroos 99 $2979

Hawthorn 132 $3469

Sydney 98 $3622

Port Adelaide 104 $3817

Fremantle 130 $4107

Adelaide 111 $4216

Brisbane 111 $4603

Collingwood 113 $6964




Personally I would be looking carefully at who recruits at Geelong, the Saints and West Coast, and how they develop their players. There are no other clubs we should poach recruiters or recruiting models from.

Saints very very impressive, shame on the entire bottom half of this ladder! There are some fatcat recruiters sponging off clubs methinks!

Note that West Coast, Saints and Geelong, the three best recruiting clubs, don’t spend that much on the recruiting department for their results.

It looks like spending more money doesn't have a major impact on recruiting success. Since 2004 though, Collingwood has improved their recruiting to mid-table type levels, since their boost in recruiting dollars. Still not getting much bang for their buck.

Yes, the figures can been seen many ways.



I’m really only looking for surprises and guidelines, since there is more that can be added in to the mix which would make it too hard to interpret, like ‘quality versus quantity’.

 

[hellenictiger]

I dont beleive in draft picks and the rest. West Coast, St Kilda and Geelong have 1 premiership to show for their great efforts since 2002.

Where as the bottom 4, Sydney, Brisbane and Port have 3 premierships.

Also St Kilda, Carlton and Fremantle are on the way back down. Where as the bottom 3 on the stat sheet with draft picks are in the 8.

Geelong and West Coast on the other hand must should be credited for that great stat. But where has it taken them?

Did you see Leigh Matthews go in and create on of the best teams of all time and say, right we need drat picks? He turned a bottom of the ladder team into the best and guys like Lappin, Ashcroft, Hart, Leppitsch and Pike where turned into quality players.

St Kilda is that perfect example I love to comment on, they will not get anywhere, because they played it too safe. There is no magic structred planned theory in creating a premiership team. Only West Coast can go by that. Where as, Brisbane, Port, Sydney and Essendon who have all been the other premiership teams, never had a draft pick fruit salad.

 

[Darth Tiger]

Re: 2002-->2007 Draft ladder

Final placings: 2002-2007 draft ladder.

I have then looked at the current recruiting budget (which doesn’t really apply all the way back to 2002, but it gives a rough guide), and divided it by the number of games it has produced from draftees. This shows somewhat, how much spending on recruiting actually effects results. My conclusion is that more money has stuff all effect on your general drafting success:


Note that West Coast, Saints and Geelong, the three best recruiting clubs, don’t spend that much on the recruiting department for their results.

It looks like spending more money doesn't have a major impact on recruiting success. Since 2004 though, Collingwood has improved their recruiting to mid-table type levels, since their boost in recruiting dollars. Still not getting much bang for their buck.

Interesting analysis Ghost, are the recruiting dollars inclusive of Rookies ?

I would be very interested to see whether West Coast rookies are included in theor recruiting budget because of their success in this period with the likes of Cox & Priddis.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Rookies were not included, just because then we get into total list management which is a much much bigger analysis.

It is interesting though that the quality of recent drafting sometimes is a long way from where the club is on the ladder, as Hellenictiger pointed out.

As another PMer mentioned to me, how well you then develop you draftees is really important. I suspect West coast haven't drafted as well as it appears, but have really gotten the most out of their draftees with fitness and coaching work.