Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just some random analysis, not sure it means anything

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by penguinfarmer View Post
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Haaaaaa!

        Comment


        • #19
          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".
          Last edited by slipknottin; 04-28-2013, 09:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TCHOF View Post
              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.
              Last edited by Redeyejedi; 04-28-2013, 09:57 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Captain Chaos View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheEnigma View Post
                    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.
                    Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

                    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Captain Chaos View Post
                      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.
                      My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Redeyejedi View Post
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ObsessedNYGFan View Post
                            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.
                            My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X