Perception of Players- Is it distorted by their relative Draft position?

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

hujsh in a post on the "Adam Cooney is he lazy?" thread got me thinking about the following.

He basically said that if the draft position of Adam Cooney was a secret, most would be happy with his output to date.
This got me thinking about whether as supporters we distort our view of players and their relative performance based on where they were drafted.

If say for want of an example- Adam Cooney was a 2nd rounder or later would be be focussing on his positive attributes ,more so than his relative weaknesses, and in turn hailing his pickup as a bargain and therefore based on his cost we would judge his career to date to be an overwhelming success.

On the flip side would we judge someone like Dale Morris who came to the club as a mature rookie, differently if he was actually a 1st rounder. If he was a 1st rounder would we be lamenting that we should've picked a guy with better disposal skills, and more natual footballing talent with that pick. And therefore would we rate him as highly as the majority of us do?

As a result of Adam being taken at number one (through no fault of his own) are we therefore expecting him, and others to be the be all and end all of footy players, and thefore judging his and others performance through this prism? Is this fair?

Draft picks are obviously important to the future of any clubs playing list, as this is where (one way or another) all clubs get their players from. It is though, given the young age of most draftees, a bit of a crap shoot as we are by and large picking someone who is still for all intents and purposes still a physcially developing teenager. Meaning that there is a fair amount of uncertainty as to how that young adult will develop into their adult frame and mind.

By the way I was just using Cooney and Morris as examples and am not intending either way to over/underrate their value or question their relative worth to the club. Merely I wanted to use them as an analogy to make my point more clear on high low picks players so as to get peoples thoughts on the question, as they represent the extremes of the draft scale, with cooney being pick one and Morris beig a mature rookie lister.

Perception is an interesting thing that humans employ to make a range of opinions on many things, and like the old saying " Don't believe all that you see" it isn't necessarily the most accurate of ways for humans to make overall assessments.

But as many marketers, PR people and advertisers will tell you it is of vital importance as an overall influencer of decision.

[hujsh]

Morris is an interesting one. No doubt he is loved by say 90% of the supporters for his great defensive work and the fact that he was a rookie makes it a great story. If he was a 1st round draft pick we would hate that he has become such a defensive player and not a star. BUT all early picks are based on talent moreso than work ethic and commitment and effort(they would be seen as something the clubs can teach).

Few top 10 draft picks become taggers or back pockets.

For mine every player is judged by his place in the draft for most of their careers.

Cooney is a soon to be 22 year old who averaged 20+possies and played everygame last year. That is pretty good. Allot of players in the top 20 didn't do that.

[ledge]

Chris Grant and James Hird were very low in the draft , around the 100 mark i think, it all depends on how they mature i think and how some coaches mould players, Cooney will be ok but remember some players are great juniors but as they get older the others catch up, high draft picks are a gamble more than lower ones i think with money involved, I think Richmond had one called loundes he was a dud and correct me if im wrong he was no 1! Perception puts weight on players no doubt

[LostDoggy]

Of course perception changes with draft pick. If you buy a $500k Mercedes are you happy if it breaks down 12months later?

[wimberga]

All good posts and a great thread here YHF

I think you also need to consider the competition in the Draft. Cooney was picked in a relatively shallow draft, as was Walsh.

It needs to be a bit comparative, but the main point is yes, we do generally judge them more on there draft place.

[The Coon Dog]

Of course we do, you only have to look at the negative comments from tome to time towards Farren Ray or Richard Tambling of the Tigers.

Is it fair? Of course not, but it seems to be human nature.

Once they're drafted they if effect make up 1/38th of a teams list. There's just a greater expectation upon them to a) play better more often & b) play 200+ games.

Although gems like Grant & Hird have been found in the past recruiters these days seem to get out & about much more so smokeys being hidden away are rare.

Maybe rookies like Morris, Cox, Davey, Michael etc... are an acknowledgement that recruiters can still get it wrong & those who develop significantly after turning 18 can still make it with the right level of application.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Of course we do, you only have to look at the negative comments from tome to time towards Farren Ray or Richard Tambling of the Tigers.

Is it fair? Of course not, but it seems to be human nature.

Once they're drafted they if effect make up 1/38th of a teams list. There's just a greater expectation upon them to a) play better more often & b) play 200+ games.
Although gems like Grant & Hird have been found in the past recruiters these days seem to get out & about much more so smokeys being hidden away are rare.

Maybe rookies like Morris, Cox, Davey, Michael etc... are an acknowledgement that recruiters can still get it wrong & those who develop significantly after turning 18 can still make it with the right level of application.

Yes, agree it is human nature. And I'm just as susceptible of building up my own expectations of a players worth based on where they are picked as the next person. I find myself every draft year, looking to see who our 1st pick is...... and also can get quite frustrated when some of them don't pan out quite as their potential would suggest, ie Tim Walsh, Sam Power, Cam Faulkner.....
Walsh and Power in particular seemed to generate quite a high proportion of negative comments through their time at the Dogs, s they failed to measure up to the expectation that they should be long term 200 plus game players for us, yet lower picks who didn't make it.. nowhere near as much....

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

All good posts and a great thread here YHF

I think you also need to consider the competition in the Draft. Cooney was picked in a relatively shallow draft, as was Walsh.
It needs to be a bit comparative, but the main point is yes, we do generally judge them more on there draft place.

Interesting point wimberga.... I think the opposite could also be quite a millstone around a players neck. That is, being a high pick in a strong draft. Take Sam Power... number 10 in the "superdraft", as an example. How many threads have their been on BF over the years as to which other draftee taken after him we should've taken in stead of Sam.

Or even remember the initial concern many supporters showed when Everitt was picked in the most recent "superdraft". Many had doubts we'd made the best choice and I'd wager there is alot of expectation on him to perform well over the next year or so.. or we'll see thread on BF in particular about how "Clayton got it wrong and we should've picked either Sellar, Riewoldt or whoever else from that draft class starts to shine)"

[Sockeye Salmon]

In this years draft we originally intended to take Mulligan with the pick we used on Boumann but Clayton changed his mind quite late.

Mulligan looks a good prospect with his size and athletisism but there is no doubt he is thought of as 'just' a rookie lister and therefore not as talented.

FWIW, at this very early stage, it looks as though Clayton had it the right way around to start with.

If he wasn't a rookie we would be talking about the likelihood of him getting a game pretty soon.

[Go_Dogs]

Interesting thread.

I think the obvious answer is, of course the clubs/coaches/fans all expect higher draft picks to be better players than the ones taken later, or rookie listed players. This is because they are the ones identified by the clubs as the most likely to succeed or be able to fill a role in the side, and as such, are expected to do so.

Later picks and rookie selections are often more speculative and done on a team needs basis, rather than just identifying the best talent and selecting it. For this reason, we get very excited when a late draft choice or rookie makes it, as we didn't really expect them to develop into a player who could play 200 games.

Perhaps it's an unfair burden to put on the players, but the fact is we need to get the best out of talent drafted, and when we use picks such as 1,3,4,6 like we have on blokes like Cooney, Griffen, Ray and Williams respectively, we expect these blokes to become genuinely good players for the club. If they can't handle the expectation, don't play football.

[Mofra]

Perhaps it's an unfair burden to put on the players, but the fact is we need to get the best out of talent drafted, and when we use picks such as 1,3,4,6 like we have on blokes like Cooney, Griffen, Ray and Williams respectively, we expect these blokes to become genuinely good players for the club. If they can't handle the expectation, don't play football.

By & by some players rise when expectations are higher. One player I spoke to who was a reasonable kick for goal (but not super-elite) & asked who he'd like kicking for a GF win after the siren. Without hesitation he said "mine". Good players thrive on pressure. Best example I can think of is Grant vs Essendon in 2000. His kicking at goal had been patchy, but given the situation & the tense air of the dome, you knew he'd slot that goal from the boundary to put us in front.

FWIW I also think most father/son players have as much pressure as top 10 draft picks, simply because their father's career will serve as the basis of constant comparison.

[Bulldog4life]

hujsh in a post on the "Adam Cooney is he lazy?" thread got me thinking about the following.

He basically said that if the draft position of Adam Cooney was a secret, most would be happy with his output to date.
This got me thinking about whether as supporters we distort our view of players and their relative performance based on where they were drafted.

If say for want of an example- Adam Cooney was a 2nd rounder or later would be be focussing on his positive attributes ,more so than his relative weaknesses, and in turn hailing his pickup as a bargain and therefore based on his cost we would judge his career to date to be an overwhelming success.

On the flip side would we judge someone like Dale Morris who came to the club as a mature rookie, differently if he was actually a 1st rounder. If he was a 1st rounder would we be lamenting that we should've picked a guy with better disposal skills, and more natual footballing talent with that pick. And therefore would we rate him as highly as the majority of us do?

As a result of Adam being taken at number one (through no fault of his own) are we therefore expecting him, and others to be the be all and end all of footy players, and thefore judging his and others performance through this prism? Is this fair?

Draft picks are obviously important to the future of any clubs playing list, as this is where (one way or another) all clubs get their players from. It is though, given the young age of most draftees, a bit of a crap shoot as we are by and large picking someone who is still for all intents and purposes still a physcially developing teenager. Meaning that there is a fair amount of uncertainty as to how that young adult will develop into their adult frame and mind.

By the way I was just using Cooney and Morris as examples and am not intending either way to over/underrate their value or question their relative worth to the club. Merely I wanted to use them as an analogy to make my point more clear on high low picks players so as to get peoples thoughts on the question, as they represent the extremes of the draft scale, with cooney being pick one and Morris beig a mature rookie lister.

Perception is an interesting thing that humans employ to make a range of opinions on many things, and like the old saying " Don't believe all that you see" it isn't necessarily the most accurate of ways for humans to make overall assessments.

But as many marketers, PR people and advertisers will tell you it is of vital importance as an overall influencer of decision.

Just to get off topic for a moment. This is so true Yankee. After reading some of what my fellow Bulldog posters say on some games that I have been to, I start to wonder if I actually was at those games.

[MrMahatma]

It's not surprising though. High picks have a higher perceived value than low picks.

Sure, both will get you a footballer, but there's you've got a greater choice of available players with a high pick.

I think it's right to expect high picks to be good players. However, don't think it's right to blame them if they don't. If we use a high pick on someone - use S Power as an example. Either we've got it wrong as a team by a) A recruiting him so high/at all cause he really wasn't worth it - recruitment team's fault, b)took a gamble that he had a huge 'upside' and it didn't pay off c) he wasn't developed correctly - coaching team's fault d)he just wasn't up to it/wasted his talent.

Could be any number of reasons that a player doesn't live up to expectation, and they're not all within the player's control.

While I think high picks should have expectations to deliver decent players, I don't think clubs should be flippant and say 'only a 3rd/4th round pick, no real loss' cause it's those picks that can be the difference between having to do a Carlton and rebuild by high picks, or staying strong for years - good rookie pick-ups, solid late round pick ups. (of course, draft depth will have a say in all of this).

At the end of the day though, it can be a bit of luck. Player development is such a big part of the compeition these days. Who's to say that, if Cooney was picked up at the Lions he wouldn't already be in the elite midfielders of the competition, or if we picked up Buddy Franklin, he'd be wasting away in the seconds cause he's not been developed properly. Good coaches are so important.

Good thread.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I wonder how much being a lower pick motivates a player to improve

Some guys just think its going to happen, having been annointed school/underage superstars,

Do they just assume its going to happen in the AFL? and hence are sometimes less likely to develop the work ethic required?

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I wonder how much being a lower pick motivates a player to improve

Some guys just think its going to happen, having been annointed school/underage superstars,

Do they just assume its going to happen in the AFL? and hence are sometimes less likely to develop the work ethic required?

That's a good point. And I wonder whether those with that attitude get hit even harder confidence wise when they find mixing it with the big boys requires even more dedication. When it doesn't all just happen for them like it did in schoolboy footy... do they start to question themselves perhaps for the 1st time?
Perhaps it makes the mental side (and therefore the proceess of a club reviewing a player prior to the draft) all the more important to find out just what makes them tick, and how they respond to challenges.

Interesting from what I've heard is that Port's Mark Williams really grills the potential draftees during the draft camp interviews and puts them under alot of pressure to see how they handle it.

incidentally I reckon there might be more pressure/expectations on high draftees nowadays than when the draft first began.... I don't recall Anthony Banik -taken 1st by the tigers years ago, getting a real grilling by the media when he didn't make it...