PDA

View Full Version : Just some random analysis, not sure it means anything



slipknottin
04-27-2013, 11:07 PM
But just made a list of where the giants drafted all their players the last 4 seasons, then compared it to where nfldraftscout (cbs sports) had those players ranked.

Im going to just toss out the 6th and 7th rounds because some of those guys are rated vastly different (someone has a guy worth a 7th pick vs a UDFA, could be 200+ picks difference)

So here goes
player name / position drafted / ranking at nfldraftscout = the difference between the two

2013
Pugh - 19 - 45 = -26
Hankins 49 - 50 = -1
Moore 81 - 52 = 29
Nassib 110 - 41 = 69
Taylor 152 - 275 = -123
Total = -52

2012
Wilson 32 - 47 = -15
randle - 63 - 34 = 29
hosley - 94 - 77 = 17
robinson 127 - 211 = -84
mosley 131 - 109 = 22
Total = -31

2011
Prince 19 - 6 = 13
Austin 52 - 39 = 13
Jernigan 83 - 61 = 22
Brewer 117 - 92 = 25
Jones 185 - 142 = 43
Total = 116

2010
JPP 15 - 24 = -9
Linval 46 - 55 = -9
Dillard 115 - 155 = -40
Petrus 147 - 108 = 39
Total = -19

So compared to pre-draft rankings, the 2011 draft was by far the best draft the giants have had the past 4 years, its the only one with positive value (steals instead of reaches).

Might be why the people here you really follow this stuff are more disappointed in this draft, as this one has comparatively the lowest value. Though if you remove Taylor, its actually the best draft they have had.

Of course none of this actually means anything, the 2011 draft for instance, Austin, Jernigan, Brewer, and Jones have done nothing thus far. (Jones isnt even on the team)

But its interesting to see. I can do another few drafts if anyone has any interest in this

gmen0820
04-27-2013, 11:26 PM
It's really the -26 in the first round (worst of all of these drafts) that makes this draft seem bad. Additionally, the Nassib (who most didn't want) inflation that make this draft seem less harsher than people want to believe.

myles2424
04-27-2013, 11:27 PM
I wonder if we would've actually went BPA all the way through how it would've ended up...
Something like...

Sheriff Floyd/Xavier Rhodes
Jamar Taylor/Arthur brown
Damontre Moore
Kasheem Greene/Jonathan franklin
Micah Hyde/josh Boyd
Baccari Rambo
Everette Dawkins/Marques Wilson

Carter.525
04-27-2013, 11:29 PM
I wonder if we would've actually went BPA all the way through how it would've ended up...Something like...Sheriff Floyd/Xavier RhodesJamar Taylor/Arthur brownDamontre MooreKasheem Greene/Jonathan franklinMicah Hyde/josh BoydBaccari Rambo Everette Dawkins/Marques WilsonDon't do it.. Your gonna upset people (me)

slipknottin
04-27-2013, 11:29 PM
It's really the -26 in the first round (worst of all of these drafts) that makes this draft seem bad. Additionally, the Nassib (who most didn't want) inflation that make this draft seem less harsher than people want to believe.

Toss out Nassib and Taylor and its only what, -4? That would still qualify as the second best draft by value in the last four years

myles2424
04-27-2013, 11:30 PM
Don't do it.. Your gonna upset people (me)

Sorry to rub it in, but I'm still not over it

TheEnigma
04-27-2013, 11:31 PM
Taylor really affects the difference but I don't think he was rated highly because of the medical condition (which was cleared by the Giants). I can't imagine him being seen as a 5th round reach had he not had the heart issue. Really do wonder where he would have been drafted had none of that happened...

gmen0820
04-27-2013, 11:34 PM
Toss out Nassib and Taylor and its only what, -4? That would still qualify as the second best draft by value in the last four yearsIt's still the worst valued first rounder we've had that really set the tone for a lot of people.

And if we toss out two players, that's only offering a really small sample size with three Giant draftees.

slipknottin
04-27-2013, 11:36 PM
It's still the worst valued first rounder we've had that really set the tone for a lot of people.

And if we toss out two players, that's only offering a really small sample size with three Giant draftees.

That's an idea actually. Factor in the trade value chart too. Perhaps multiply every pick by the trade chart value. Would minimize later round picks while making early picks more important. Hmm

gmen0820
04-27-2013, 11:40 PM
That's an idea actually. Factor in the trade value chart too. Perhaps multiply every pick by the trade chart value. Would minimize later round picks while making early picks more important. HmmThat'd offer a tighter conclusion.

Interesting that under these rankings, Nassib was not only our most valuable pick, but the highest rated prospect we took.

Carter.525
04-27-2013, 11:43 PM
I have hope for Cooper Taylor.. (-123)

juice33s
04-28-2013, 12:25 AM
u have way too much time on ur hands

Rat_bastich
04-28-2013, 05:11 AM
I have hope for Cooper Taylor.. (-123)

Too bad that can't be the number on his jersey. Maybe a nickname, we can call him Player Minus 1...2...3.

DaKraken
04-28-2013, 08:17 AM
OP you're right it means nothing

penguinfarmer
04-28-2013, 08:45 AM
This is a rather elementary equation though. I don't see any weighted differentiation between first round and fifth round where they each should have their own variable.

slipknottin
04-28-2013, 08:47 AM
This is a rather elementary equation though. I don't see any weighted differentiation between first round and fifth round where they each should have their own variable.

I'm going to do that in a few. I'll add back in the late round picks as well

TCHOF
04-28-2013, 08:48 AM
To me, this just shows how little the pre-draft predictions actually mean. 2011 is by far the best draft according to the pre-draft predictions but by far the worst draft according to on-field production.

NOLAGiant73
04-28-2013, 09:09 AM
Haaaaaa!

slipknottin
04-28-2013, 09:16 AM
Updated including draft trade values

2013
Pugh 19 - 45 = -26 * 875 = -22750
Hankins 49 - 50 = -1 * 410 = -410
Moore 81 - 52 = 29 * 185 = 5365
Nassib 110 - 41 = 69 * 74 = 5106
Taylor 152 - 275 = 123 * 30.6 = 3764
Herman 225 - 212 = 13 * 1 = 13
Cox 253 - 669 = -416 * 1 = -416
Total = -9328

2012
Wilson 32 - 47 = -15 * 590 = -8850
randle - 63 - 34 = 29 * 276 = 8004
hosley - 94 - 77 = 17 * 124 = 2108
robinson 127 - 211 = -84 * 45 = -3780
mosley 131 - 109 = 22 * 41 = 902
mccants 201 - 166 = 35 * 11 = 385
Kuhn 239 - 235 = 4 * 1 = 4
Total = -1227

2011
Prince 19 - 6 = 13 * 875 = 11875
Austin 52 - 39 = 13 * 380 = 4940
Jernigan 83 - 61 = 22 * 175 = 3850
Brewer 117 - 92 = 25 * 60 = 1500
Jones 185 - 142 = 43 * 17.4 = 748
Sash 198 - 77 = 121 * 1 = 121
J Will 202 - 432 = -230 * 1 = -230
Da'Rel Scott 221 - 225 = -4 * 1 = -4
Total = 22800

2010
JPP 15 - 24 = -9 * 1050 = -9450
Linval 46 - 55 = -9 * 440 = -3960
Dillard 115 - 155 = -40 * 64 = -2560
Petrus 147 - 108 = 39 * 78 = 3042
Tracy 184 - 220 = -36 * 17.8 = -641
Dodge 221 - 301 = -80 * 1 = -80
Total = -13649


So this makes this the second worst draft of the last four years, only behind the 2010 draft. 2011 by far the best draft, the only one with "positive value".

Redeyejedi
04-28-2013, 09:41 AM
Updated including draft trade values

2013
Pugh 19 - 45 = -26 * 875 = -22750
Hankins 49 - 50 = -1 * 410 = -410
Moore 81 - 52 = 29 * 185 = 5365
Nassib 110 - 41 = 69 * 74 = 5106
Taylor 152 - 275 = 123 * 30.6 = 3764
Herman 225 - 212 = 13 * 1 = 13
Cox 253 - 669 = -416 * 1 = -416
Total = -9328

2012
Wilson 32 - 47 = -15 * 590 = -8850
randle - 63 - 34 = 29 * 276 = 8004
hosley - 94 - 77 = 17 * 124 = 2108
robinson 127 - 211 = -84 * 45 = -3780
mosley 131 - 109 = 22 * 41 = 902
mccants 201 - 166 = 35 * 11 = 385
Kuhn 239 - 235 = 4 * 1 = 4
Total = -1227

2011
Prince 19 - 6 = 13 * 875 = 11875
Austin 52 - 39 = 13 * 380 = 4940
Jernigan 83 - 61 = 22 * 175 = 3850
Brewer 117 - 92 = 25 * 60 = 1500
Jones 185 - 142 = 43 * 17.4 = 748
Sash 198 - 77 = 121 * 1 = 121
J Will 202 - 432 = -230 * 1 = -230
Da'Rel Scott 221 - 225 = -4 * 1 = -4
Total = 22800

2010
JPP 15 - 24 = -9 * 1050 = -9450
Linval 46 - 55 = -9 * 440 = -3960
Dillard 115 - 155 = -40 * 64 = -2560
Petrus 147 - 108 = 39 * 78 = 3042
Tracy 184 - 220 = -36 * 17.8 = -641
Dodge 221 - 301 = -80 * 1 = -80
Total = -13649


So this makes this the second worst draft of the last four years, only behind the 2010 draft. 2011 by far the best draft, the only one with "positive value".

Cooper Taylor u have as positive shouldnt it be negative

Redeyejedi
04-28-2013, 09:49 AM
To me, this just shows how little the pre-draft predictions actually mean. 2011 is by far the best draft according to the pre-draft predictions but by far the worst draft according to on-field production. They have only played 2 years and missed the entire off season programs the rookie years. By the end of the rookie deals its quite possible Prince will be best CB we have had since Webster if not better. Jacqauin Williams could be a starting WLB.Brewer could be the starting RT and Scott could be a contributing RB. To early to tell. Austin and Jernigan though do not look promising. not really surprised Greg jones wasnt any good and Sash i never thought was more then Special teams.

Its possible Cooper taylor is similar to Jacquain WIlliams that he is rated lower because of lack of familiarity. When I went back and watched Williams tape I thought he looked fantastic.

Captain Chaos
04-28-2013, 09:53 AM
Slip, I wrote a whole lengthy reply describing why you analysis was meaningless, then realized that I was writing it for the wrong audience. Anyway, you can't assign a value to a subjective assessment or rating and add them subtract multiply or divide them. There are many other things wrong with this analysis, all of which means that you really need to find a better way to look at the data.

slipknottin
04-28-2013, 09:59 AM
Slip, I wrote a whole lengthy reply describing why you analysis was meaningless, then realized that I was writing it for the wrong audience. Anyway, you can't assign a value to a subjective assessment or rating and add them subtract multiply or divide them. There are many other things wrong with this analysis, all of which means that you really need to find a better way to look at the data.yea I know what you mean.

Was just trying to compare pre draft data to whether the giants were reaching or having top guys fall to them.

Of course it means nothing for the actual players, and it's only one source.

B&RWarrior
04-28-2013, 10:46 AM
Taylor really affects the difference but I don't think he was rated highly because of the medical condition (which was cleared by the Giants). I can't imagine him being seen as a 5th round reach had he not had the heart issue. Really do wonder where he would have been drafted had none of that happened...

Who cares, we got him and he's going to ball! That was an awesome pick.

gmen0820
04-28-2013, 11:18 AM
I was writing it for the wrong audience.It's the wrong audience because this thread, and method of analysis, is less about trying to grade a draft than it is to grade the fan's perception of our draft. Hence, the pick value addition.

Without the pick value addition, drafts would be inflated and influenced by the online prospect rankers inability to predict the lower ranks. The draft in general is a crapshoot.

TCHOF
04-28-2013, 08:01 PM
They have only played 2 years and missed the entire off season programs the rookie years. By the end of the rookie deals its quite possible Prince will be best CB we have had since Webster if not better. Jacqauin Williams could be a starting WLB.Brewer could be the starting RT and Scott could be a contributing RB. To early to tell. Austin and Jernigan though do not look promising. not really surprised Greg jones wasnt any good and Sash i never thought was more then Special teams.

Its possible Cooper taylor is similar to Jacquain WIlliams that he is rated lower because of lack of familiarity. When I went back and watched Williams tape I thought he looked fantastic.

Good point. A little early to judge the 2011 draft

ObsessedNYGFan
04-28-2013, 11:23 PM
Updated including draft trade values

2013
Pugh 19 - 45 = -26 * 875 = -22750
Hankins 49 - 50 = -1 * 410 = -410
Moore 81 - 52 = 29 * 185 = 5365
Nassib 110 - 41 = 69 * 74 = 5106
Taylor 152 - 275 = 123 * 30.6 = 3764
Herman 225 - 212 = 13 * 1 = 13
Cox 253 - 669 = -416 * 1 = -416
Total = -9328

2012
Wilson 32 - 47 = -15 * 590 = -8850
randle - 63 - 34 = 29 * 276 = 8004
hosley - 94 - 77 = 17 * 124 = 2108
robinson 127 - 211 = -84 * 45 = -3780
mosley 131 - 109 = 22 * 41 = 902
mccants 201 - 166 = 35 * 11 = 385
Kuhn 239 - 235 = 4 * 1 = 4
Total = -1227

2011
Prince 19 - 6 = 13 * 875 = 11875
Austin 52 - 39 = 13 * 380 = 4940
Jernigan 83 - 61 = 22 * 175 = 3850
Brewer 117 - 92 = 25 * 60 = 1500
Jones 185 - 142 = 43 * 17.4 = 748
Sash 198 - 77 = 121 * 1 = 121
J Will 202 - 432 = -230 * 1 = -230
Da'Rel Scott 221 - 225 = -4 * 1 = -4
Total = 22800

2010
JPP 15 - 24 = -9 * 1050 = -9450
Linval 46 - 55 = -9 * 440 = -3960
Dillard 115 - 155 = -40 * 64 = -2560
Petrus 147 - 108 = 39 * 78 = 3042
Tracy 184 - 220 = -36 * 17.8 = -641
Dodge 221 - 301 = -80 * 1 = -80
Total = -13649


So this makes this the second worst draft of the last four years, only behind the 2010 draft. 2011 by far the best draft, the only one with "positive value".

The thing I would point out about this, is that as I'm sure you already know, the draft value trade chart changes every year. There is every reason to believe that the picks have a much lower standard of deviation from the mean (a fancy way of saying the lower and higher picks are much farther apart in value) this year. just look at the raiders trade with the dolphins (although I realize the raiders were rather desperate to trade out of the pick). The same is true of all of the early picks I believe if you compare the values from the trade chart that is available online to the actual trades were on draft day.

So basically, at least for this year, the higher picks had less value than normal, and if you wanted to determine a more realistic number for the values in prior years' drafts, you would have to analyze all of the trades that happened, and then come up with all new numbers that roughly fit that data. Obviously that would be a lot of work and quite difficult to do though.

I also think that rounds 4-7 are all really had to figure out, since often, especially with the giants lately, a team takes a guy that's not on most teams radar, like Adrien Robinson or Taylor his year, who the giants FO think are hidden gems.

Lastly I think there is actually a bit of a disconnect between value of a player that is picked versus the value of the actual pick itself that is determined by the draft pick trade chart. Teams determine the value of the picks themselves based on the fact that you are more likely to draft a player who will be good/great for your team with a higher pick. However, if you draft a player who has a second round grade in the third round (for example Moore from this year based on the data you provided), shouldn't you multiply his value by the value of the pick he actually was graded at as opposed to picked at? To show what I mean, I'll give a good example. Imagine Eric Fisher had the number one grade in the draft. If we drafted him in the seventh round, the second last pick in the draft, why should you multiply that number by the value of the second to last pick? That is treating Fisher as a late seventh-rounder, which is clearly wacked.

Basically I guess I'm just pointing out that it's very difficult if not near impossible to evaluate a draft just based on round-grades given by scouts relative to where the players were actually drafted. You'd actually probably be better off doing it the way you did it the first time.

gmen0820
04-28-2013, 11:45 PM
Lastly I think there is actually a bit of a disconnect between value of a player that is picked versus the value of the actual pick itself that is determined by the draft pick trade chart. Teams determine the value of the picks themselves based on the fact that you are more likely to draft a player who will be good/great for your team with a higher pick. However, if you draft a player who has a second round grade in the third round (for example Moore from this year based on the data you provided), shouldn't you multiply his value by the value of the pick he actually was graded at as opposed to picked at? To show what I mean, I'll give a good example. Imagine Eric Fisher had the number one grade in the draft. If we drafted him in the seventh round, the second last pick in the draft, why should you multiply that number by the value of the second to last pick? That is treating Fisher as a late seventh-rounder, which is clearly wacked.Maybe -- sticking with the draftscout rankings -- you take the player value (pick - ranking) and the multiplying factor could be his ranking in pick value - his selections pick value.

A little confusing, but I'll elaborate. You have CBS Sports' top prospect, Luke Joeckel. His player value would be -- in the seventh round -- 252 (253prospect-1prospect) and his multiplying factor would be 2999 (3000pts-1pt). 252*2999=big number

That's a really extreme scenario, but you get the point.

ObsessedNYGFan
04-29-2013, 12:49 AM
Maybe -- sticking with the draftscout rankings -- you take the player value (pick - ranking) and the multiplying factor could be his ranking in pick value - his selections pick value.

A little confusing, but I'll elaborate. You have CBS Sports' top prospect, Luke Joeckel. His player value would be -- in the seventh round -- 252 (253prospect-1prospect) and his multiplying factor would be 2999 (3000pts-1pt). 252*2999=big number

That's a really extreme scenario, but you get the point.

Yeah, that's basically what I was implying, and maybe that works ok (Fisher in 7th round obviously should generate an insane number). The only thing I don't like is that we don't have the real trade chart, as I mentioned (that oakland trade was an outlier, but funny enough I think it was still a good trade for both teams, which I think goes to the point of how off the chart an be in some cases, but I digress a bit).

Here are some more examples to see where this gets us:

Fisher at 19 = (19 - 1) * (3000 -875) = 38,250
#10 ranked at 19 = (19 - 10) * (1300 - 875) = 3,825
#19 ranked at 19 = 0
#28 ranked at 19 = (19 - 28) * (660 - 875) = 1,935 (two negatives make a positive)

The problem we run into here is that the last example wants to express that the pick is bad because it is two early for the pick and also because you picked poorly on a very important pick, but with this expression is unable to because the negatives cancel. Also using absolute value does not fix the problem.

Instead perhaps we can try making the ranking a fraction when negative, ie. -10 = 1/10, and the point value as a fraction:

Fisher at 19 = (19 - 1) * (3000 / 875) = 61.7
#10 ranked at 19 = (19 - 10) * (1300 / 875) = 13.37
#19 ranked at 19 = 1
#28 ranked at 19 = (1 / 9) * (660 / 875) = .083
#224 (late 7th rounder) at 19 = (1 / 224) * (2 / 875) = .000102

So in the most extreme examples given (Fisher at 19 and 7th rounder at 19), the difference in value of the pick is roughly 650,000 times better.
#10 ranked at 19 being 13 times better than average value seems a bit extreme to me though, so maybe just view this as more of a point system. However it does at least seem to weigh hits and misses fairly equally.

Let's see if it punishes less for misses and rewards less for hits in late rounds: (obviously if you pick exact value you still get a 1 however)

#42 at 51 = (51 - 42) * (480 / 390) = 11.08
#60 at 51 = (1 / 9) * (300 / 390) = .0854

#74 at 83 = (83 - 74) * (220 / 175) = 11.3
#92 at 83 = (1 / 9) * (132 / 175) = .083

As you can see unfortunately it doesn't reflect that, it actually treats the rounds about the same as long as the picks are equal distance apart.

It might just be best to not divide by the value of the actual pick. Then you get:

1st round:

#10 ranked at 19 = (19 - 10) * 1300 = 11,700
#28 ranked at 19 = (1 / 9) * 660 = 73

2nd round:

#42 at 51 = (51 - 42) * 480 = 4,320
#60 at 51 = (1 / 9) * 300 = 33.3

4th round:

#74 at 83 = (83 - 74) * 220 = 1,980
#92 at 83 = (1 / 9) * 132 = 14.7

Doing this reflects the fact that if you want a high point total for your total draft (essentially your draft grade), the high picks are very important. I think doing it this way is halfway decent.