Study of Trade up vs Down vs More Picks vs Stay put, etc. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Study of Trade up vs Down vs More Picks vs Stay put, etc.

T

Tannenbombs

Club Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
131
Not too long ago I did a study and it showed that Top 100 picks have a 56% chance to be multiple year starters, where players picked after the top 100 only have a 15% chance. Included in that 15% are long snappers (the one the Giants drafted), punters, kickers, returners, and fulbacks. So if I were to omit those position groups, I hypothesize that % would drop to ~5% if not lower. The sample size was from 2005-2011 (Alex Smith to Cam Newton Drafts)

I also did one looking at multiple pro bowler's, in relation to where they were drafted. I chose multiple to omit any outliers (Nick Foles, Derek Anderson). I lost the word doc. so I don't have the data, but I can tell you that the conclusion of the study was that you want to pick in the top 15 of the draft every single year.
 
Thanks for the info. I tend to agree in that I would rather just see us stay put and take BPA at 14, as long as that player is of high character with no apparent off the field issues.
 
yes, but trading one pick in the top 100 for 2 picks in the top 100 would be to the teams advantage to almost guarantee one multi-year starter, no?
 
That's a little different from the 1st round elite players stuff Gonzo and alot of other guys are saying. Top 100 means first 3 rounds. Which is what I've been advocating. Trading down a little bit to get more 2nds and 3rds
 
nick1 said:
That's a little different from the 1st round elite players stuff Gonzo and alot of other guys are saying. Top 100 means first 3 rounds. Which is what I've been advocating. Trading down a little bit to get more 2nds and 3rds
Click to expand...

The 2nd paragraph is agreeing 100% with that consensus. It's saying if you want an elite player you better take him top 15. Any other time you stumble upon one it's likely just a blind squirrel finding a nut, or in Ireland's case an "acorn"

Really what I'm trying to say is that 4th-7th round picks are useless. You can build the bottom 3rd of your roster through churning and burning it through waiver wire, undrafted free agents, etc.

I do think that if you're picking outside the top 15 like in the 20's (or in Miami's case #14 this year if no elite player is available), the difference between picking #27 and #40 is so small you might as well pick up another top 100 pick. For instance the gap between Todd Gurley and Kevin Johnson is tremendous. However, the gap between Kevin Johnson and Eric Kendricks is minimal. I actually prefer Kendricks, but I think Johnson goes first. That's why New England is so smart for all these years to trade back or out of the tail end of the first round. There's not really a difference between the #27 player and the #40 player in most drafts. Except the #40 player is cheaper.
 
I sure wish you had that document. I agree that the more 1st -3rd round picks you have the more chance you have to find good players. It's like taking a multiple choice test... If get multiple guesses, I have more chance to get the answer right.
 
Tannenballs said:
The 2nd paragraph is agreeing 100% with that consensus. It's saying if you want an elite player you better take him top 15. Any other time you stumble upon one it's likely just a blind squirrel finding a nut, or in Ireland's case an "acorn"

Really what I'm trying to say is that 4th-7th round picks are useless. You can build the bottom 3rd of your roster through churning and burning it through waiver wire, undrafted free agents, etc.

I do think that if you're picking outside the top 15 like in the 20's (or in Miami's case #14 this year if no elite player is available), the difference between picking #27 and #40 is so small you might as well pick up another top 100 pick. For instance the gap between Todd Gurley and Kevin Johnson is tremendous. However, the gap between Kevin Johnson and Eric Kendricks is minimal. I actually prefer Kendricks, but I think Johnson goes first. That's why New England is so smart for all these years to trade back or out of the tail end of the first round. There's not really a difference between the #27 player and the #40 player in most drafts. Except the #40 player is cheaper.
Click to expand...

So you arent talking about elite players. You are talking about players who can have a positive impact? Well i don't think you need a ton of elite players if you have a roster of good starters
 
nick1 said:
So you arent talking about elite players. You are talking about players who can have a positive impact? Well i don't think you need a ton of elite players if you have a roster of good starters
Click to expand...

What I mean is that if you're looking for Elite, blue chip players, you need to take them in the top 15. But yes, there are still good football players that go in the top 100 every year.

I'm more an advocate of trading up to the top 15 if you're not there already. Then take as many picks in the top 100 as possible, so package the rest of your remaining 4th-7th round picks to get back into the top 100. And if you can't trade your 5th or 6th rounder as part of a trade package to move up, punt it to someone for something next year. Belichick and the Pats do this all the time. They trade their current years' 5th rounder for a 4th rounder the next year. Just a way to add more ammo for the following year. I don't think late round picks are worth their grain of salt.
 
Tannenballs said:
Not too long ago I did a study and it showed that Top 100 picks have a 56% chance to be multiple year starters, where players picked after the top 100 only have a 15% chance. Included in that 15% are long snappers (the one the Giants drafted), punters, kickers, returners, and fulbacks. So if I were to omit those position groups, I hypothesize that % would drop to ~5% if not lower. The sample size was from 2005-2011 (Alex Smith to Cam Newton Drafts)

I also did one looking at multiple pro bowler's, in relation to where they were drafted. I chose multiple to omit any outliers (Nick Foles, Derek Anderson). I lost the word doc. so I don't have the data, but I can tell you that the conclusion of the study was that you want to pick in the top 15 of the draft every single year.
Click to expand...

Common sense would dictate this to be true. From a pick up game to the NFL draft, the higher picks should be better.

I do like stats but, not those from years of the draft. Each draft is entirely different in the talent level available and should be judged separately.
 
There have been numerous studies on this. I posted one academic link a few times. The conclusion was that late first round offered the highest value in terms of production related to cost. But this was prior to the altered rookie wage scale.

Many versions indicate that the likelihood of finding a star player falls off dramatically after about the 40th pick. That's why in the past I've supported trading down as long as you remain in the Top 40. But with Miami's recent inept tendencies I now prefer to move up, or at least stay where we are. I agree with Tannenball's summary that you want to stay within the Top 15 whenever possible.

The last thing I would do is subjectively evaluate each draft and happy adjust, trying to pretend this is a deep draft and that one was a poor draft, and therefore alter your parameters. There's nothing but danger there. Human tendency is to become infatuated with the here and now. Sure this is supposedly a weak draft but I happen to love Player X, Player Y and Player Z. The league may be be fooled but I'll jump in tomorrow and grab them, nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

As Pete Carroll said, if you rely on exceptions then suddenly your entire team is nothing but exceptions. Far preferable to rely heavily on the rule. In sports betting and also in investing I like to apply an 85/15 guideline. That means basically 85% mechanical systems or index funds with 15% set aside for more aggressive moves in which I have subjective input. I get in trouble only when I force that 15% upwards.
 
I think you might be underestimating the lower rounds. Our current roster has quite a few starters drafted in the 4th round or lower: Reshad Jones, Jelani Jenkins, Lamar Miller, Kenny Stills, and Jordan Cameron (may be missing some). Those five players constitute over 20% of our starters.
 
I guess it all depends on the draft. Personally, I could go either way. Who's available at 14? I think its likely that no one elite is there, maybe "very good" but not quite "elite". Or say the draft of Dion Jordan, that whole first round was pretty mediocre. It would've served us well to trade back and get as many 2nd's and 3rd's as possible. then again, you have the draft where we could've had Earl Thomas, Dez, Demaryius (i think that year??) but we ended up with Misi * Odrick. Nothing is a guarantee

I'd say this year we should trade back; but who knows who will be on the board come our pick. I'd love to nab Kendricks, which would help the whole defense out a ton. Then we have more 2nd's/3rd's or maybe another 4th to help fill other holes. (yeah yeah don't draft for need, but you can still pick talented players within an area of a few needs)


edit: also would like to add I think it will help a lot to have Hickenbaum instead of the most worthless GM on the planet, Jeff Ireland
 
bryan said:
I think you might be underestimating the lower rounds.
Click to expand...

I don't mind lower rounds. My annoyance is overvaluing mid 2nd through the 3rd. Those picks can pan out but too much faith is placed on them in trades. For example, Jeff Ireland was always obsessed with recovering a pick he lost in a trade. So this year his brainstorm would be to desperately recoup that 3rd round slot. More often than not, that's a stupid move. I don't care if Ireland is drafting or someone else.

Every year it's unbelievable to me how many wild guesses are taken once it reaches mid second round. The early second round, in contrast, always looks like first round caliber players who fell out of favor, for whatever reason. Then the freewheeling begins.

The one thing I would never do is happy adjust each draft and try to claim, for example, that #40 this year is the equivalent of #30 last year, or #50 in a typical year. The likelihood of pegging that correctly is next to none. Don't force yourself to be far above the norm. Rely on long term guidelines. Number 20 should be considered a standard number 20.

On Path to the Draft last week Daniel Jeremiah made a very interesting point about the Raven's draft process. He said Ozzie Newsome allowed everybody in the scouting organization to have a vote. In the final days they were told which players to study and then rank them, along with an overall preference. More often than not, Newsome went with the consensus. I'm not surprised at that, the value of wisdom of the crowd, as long as the crowd is comprised of specialists. Newsome gets all the credit but it looks like he's simply relying on a sound philosophy. Of course, in our case the famous dinner table consensus was Dion Jordan. That's why I've long maintained our biggest problem is lack of sharp people in key positions.
 
Here's an updated look at that study I mentioned. This analysis is only a week old:

http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...aft/244-what-s-the-real-value-of-a-draft-pick

I'm a bit surprised because the value plot has changed, now with greater value in the 2nd and 3rd round than previously detected. The value rises sharply beginning with pick 33. That's basically what the earlier study revealed, that late first and early second was ideal. And that's ironic because the best teams are picking late first round, essentially allowed to begin their draft in the range of ideal return.

It will be interesting to see how this holds up once more years of the new rookie salary structure are included. Right now obviously there's some tilt with great performances from a third rounder like Russell Wilson. I noted the astute sentence from the author that if you filled your team with nothing but third rounders you'd have a woeful team and plenty of salary cap space.

I still don't like mid 2nd through 3rd round but that could be an overblown bias based on Miami's recent fortunes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom