|
Post by nephillymike on May 9, 2023 20:36:23 GMT -5
From a study done a few years back by Forbes.
The first number represents the % of games started by round drafted for one season. The second number represent the % of first or second team All-Pro selections by round for 5 year period.
Based on this information, how would you weight the grading for each round pick when trying to grade an entire draft?
Round......Starter....All-Pro 1st............29.9%....48.5% 2nd...........17.5%....14.0% 3rd............12.6%....8.8% 4th............10.8%....7.0% 5th............6.4%......5.3% 6th............4.9%......3.5% 7th............4.2%......1.2% UDFA.........13.6%....11.7%
keep in mind that the UDFA pool normally has 8-12 selections so while the pool is a greater % that low draft picks, the per player UDFA starts is a decent lower, but a decent bit higher on the PB scale.
Anyone? What % weight do you put on each round when grading the draft?
|
|
|
Post by eyrie on May 10, 2023 13:37:33 GMT -5
Interesting.
I'd be expecting a first or second rounder to have a 50-50 chance of being a regular starter when it's a lot less. However those numbers are only from one season which is not a representative sample size. Or am I reading it wrongly and it's only for the rookie year?
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on May 10, 2023 17:37:31 GMT -5
no, the study just looked at all the players who started the games in a season and listed the % of starts in that year by each round drafted.
It doesn't tell you how many first rounders end up starting at some point.
I think looking it the way they did is actually better, as it incorporates an entire league data for one year.
|
|
|
Post by robbieratchet on May 11, 2023 12:31:30 GMT -5
I'd have to see the study, but at face value the numbers look ridiculous. 1st and even 2nd rounders are expected to not only start, but make an impact. And if so few are starting, how are 50% becoming All-Pros?
|
|
|
Post by eyrie on May 11, 2023 14:08:30 GMT -5
no, the study just looked at all the players who started the games in a season and listed the % of starts in that year by each round drafted. It doesn't tell you how many first rounders end up starting at some point. I think looking it the way they did is actually better, as it incorporates an entire league data for one year. Then it's too small a sample size. The exercise needs to consider the percentage of snaps (not starts) in a 10 year period to produce meaningful numbers. For example, Davis wasn't a starter last season so that would make him a bad pick despite being stuck behind Hargrave and Cox and missing time due to injuries.
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on May 11, 2023 19:09:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on May 11, 2023 19:15:13 GMT -5
I'd have to see the study, but at face value the numbers look ridiculous. 1st and even 2nd rounders are expected to not only start, but make an impact. And if so few are starting, how are 50% becoming All-Pros? Robbie, the 48.5% doesn't mean that 48.5% of 1st round picks are all Pros, it says that 48.5% of All Pros were drafted in the first round. A big difference. As for starters go, it basically says that 1st round picks are about 1.7 x as likely to be starters than 2nd round picks. Not outrageous. However, it says 1st round picks are 3.5 x more likely to be All Pros than 2nd round picks. Significant
|
|
|
Post by robbieratchet on May 12, 2023 10:31:45 GMT -5
I'd have to see the study, but at face value the numbers look ridiculous. 1st and even 2nd rounders are expected to not only start, but make an impact. And if so few are starting, how are 50% becoming All-Pros? Robbie, the 48.5% doesn't mean that 48.5% of 1st round picks are all Pros, it says that 48.5% of All Pros were drafted in the first round. A big difference. As for starters go, it basically says that 1st round picks are about 1.7 x as likely to be starters than 2nd round picks. Not outrageous. However, it says 1st round picks are 3.5 x more likely to be All Pros than 2nd round picks. Significant Fair, but as mentioned, for a lot of positions snap counts would seem to matter more than who "started" the game. Also, a very high pick could be a future QB being groomed. I'm not sure if injuries are factored in either. I'm not sure what the author's point was anyway. Is anyone arguing against the importance of 1st round picks? Teams will give up quite a bit just to move up 2 or 3 spots in the 1st. After looking at it, it just seemed like the author had a deadline to turn in an article, and threw this together at the last minute.
|
|