How to Value NFL Draft Picks by Some Harvard Guy

[DraftSavant]

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpre...l-draft-picks/

In contrast, the first overall pick has a value of 494.6, almost five times greater than the94th pick; so one should expect a player with a CAV of 74. Brad Johnson, Rodney Harrison,and Corey Dillon all had CAV’s of 74. Given the first overall pick, that is the kind caliber player one should expect to draft: Pro-Bowlers who can help lead their team to a Super Bowl victory. One cannot expect to get a player like Peyton Manning, although it is a possibility; instead, one should anticipate a player of Harrison, Dillon, and Johnson’s caliber.

Interesting stuff.

[Iamcanadian]

"The old system massively over values the earliest picks and significantly undervalues mid-to-late round picks. The regression line is clearly a better predictor of future value than the old chart."

This is the only thing I really got out of his premise and I'm not at all sure it is significant enough to make a change.
Like it or not earlier picks are highly desirable by NFL GM's and for the most part, All Pros come from the first 3 rounds at about an 85% rate in most years, so these picks are always going to be very desirable while later picks are viewed as pure luck picks. Though the odds increase if an organization has a brilliant talent evaluator as their GM or somewhere in their system.
I do a random study every year to see how closely the Value Chart is followed and every year, for the most part, teams still seem to use it most of the time. So I have found it a complete myth that teams are ignoring the Value Chart or using a different one of their own making, the fact simply do not bare this out.

[DraftSavant]

Jesus Christ, did you even ******* read it or did you just cherry pick that one sentence on purpose to go with another "NFL GMzzzzz" remix? For ****'s sake, the article even says that the 1st pick is 443.39% more valuable than a "normal" pick, which is equated to around the 94 selection. The point of the article is to try and find a mathematical basis on how to value each pick in the draft, instead of assigning arbitrary value.

Clearly, they still believe that earlier picks are more valuable than late picks.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by DraftSavant

Jesus Christ, did you even ******* read it or did you just cherry pick that one sentence on purpose to go with another "NFL GMzzzzz" remix? For ****'s sake, the article even says that the 1st pick is 443.39% more valuable than a "normal" pick, which is equated to around the 94 selection. The point of the article is to try and find a mathematical basis on how to value each pick in the draft, instead of assigning arbitrary value.

Clearly, they still believe that earlier picks are more valuable than late picks.

Why does anyone even bother responding to Iamcanadian? He's proven time and again that he's a waste of bandwidth.

BTW, excellent article.

[prock]

Get rid of that ******* graph. Or spoiler it.

[DraftSavant]

Using that, it makes sense as to why so many teams try to trade out of the bottom of the first and into the high second. There's a huge, huge dropoff in production from ~26-32, and then huge spikes back up in the early second round.

The dropoff between pick 6 and pick 10 is pretty staggering, too. Shows that it doesn't really pay off to have those 6-10 seasons. If you're going to be bad, be terrible.

And again, this is data collected over 20 years. There are going to be variances and exceptions for every draft spot.

[DcmRulz]

I think the reason late first picks fares worse than early 2nd round is because late first rounders usually reach for need, since they have fewer holes that can be addressed early, while the bad teams have lots of holes, so that BPA would probably fill a need. (evidenced by the better value in the late mid rounders that that graph appears to show)

[Sloopy]

Originally Posted by DcmRulz

I think the reason late first picks fares worse than early 2nd round is because late first rounders usually reach for need, since they have fewer holes that can be addressed early, while the bad teams have lots of holes, so that BPA would probably fill a need. (evidenced by the better value in the late mid rounders that that graph appears to show)

My thoughts exactly, these picks are where teams will draft a player even if they might be able to trade back and get them, just to not risk missing out. This is why I like Ozzie Newsome, gets value for his picks, not reaches.

[Matthew Jones]

Originally Posted by DraftSavant

Jesus Christ, did you even ******* read it or did you just cherry pick that one sentence on purpose to go with another "NFL GMzzzzz" remix? For ****'s sake, the article even says that the 1st pick is 443.39% more valuable than a "normal" pick, which is equated to around the 94 selection. The point of the article is to try and find a mathematical basis on how to value each pick in the draft, instead of assigning arbitrary value.

Clearly, they still believe that earlier picks are more valuable than late picks.

I can kind of see where they were trying to go with this chart, but try messing around with some trade scenarios. Are you really going to argue that trading the #20 pick for the #32 pick and the #224 pick is a solid deal for the team moving down? According to that chart, it's a perfect match.

[K Train]

ryan fitzMAGIC has his hands in everything

[umphrey]

Excellent article. One flaw however is to expect the top few picks to be Brad Johnson, etc. It's pretty rare, usually hit or miss, Peyton Manning or Jamarcus Russell, to get that average. High std dev for that sector.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by DraftSavant

Jesus Christ, did you even ******* read it or did you just cherry pick that one sentence on purpose to go with another "NFL GMzzzzz" remix? For ****'s sake, the article even says that the 1st pick is 443.39% more valuable than a "normal" pick, which is equated to around the 94 selection. The point of the article is to try and find a mathematical basis on how to value each pick in the draft, instead of assigning arbitrary value.

Clearly, they still believe that earlier picks are more valuable than late picks.

Now you are criticizing your own article, that is what the writer says about his formula and you find it offensive that I point it out.
The current 'Value Chart' isn't arbitrary, it was put together by people in the profession who understand the reality of their field. It is a mathematical formula that a lot of smart football people use because it makes sense to them. No it isn't a pure system of math like this character wants to use but in real life matters, pure mathematical formulas rarely are practical except at a place like a university where practicality doesn't come into the equation.
As RavenOfProphecy point out in his post, it isn't practical when applied to a real trade.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

Why does anyone even bother responding to Iamcanadian? He's proven time and again that he's a waste of bandwidth.

BTW, excellent article.

Gee, JoeJoeBrown, still upset because I keep telling you the Browns stink and aren't going anywhere for a long time. Just cannot face the truth when you so desperately believe that the franchise is going in the right direction. Unfortunately, you are on an island that is still sinking and have nowhere else to go.

[Abaddon]

I guess you have to be fluent in nerd-speak to understand what the hell this is all about.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

I guess you have to be fluent in nerd-speak to understand what the hell this is all about.

[Bengalsrocket]

I get that no one uses these numbers as absolutes. That being said, don't these systems have a missing piece of the equation, which is the players in the current draft.

For example, the value of the #1 pick next year (at least as far as we can tell) is 100% dictated by Andrew Luck. Even though the article says you should expect a Johnson or Dillon, it's not going to stop team's from acting as if Luck is a Peyton Manning in terms of value.

[Brothgar]

The value of any draft pick is not entirely in the player that is acquired which IMO this particular method kind of falls apart. The true value of all things including draft picks is, in fact, what GMs would pay for it.