THE draft thread (2013 version)

[sharpe1027]

Oh, I see... you want to 'smooth' the data do you??

Do you have a computer program for that?? How would you define the parameters and variables?? Would you say Daniels should be weighted as 17% of a whole, and House 9%, and McMillian what?? 14% for the purposes of weighing their contributions?? Because that's about what we've seen - and I think that is being generous. So, we'll say we have 17+9 (carry the 2) + 14 = 40% of a player??

So, we now have a 3.4 success rate divided by 3 more units added to the data set of 45, so that is now 48, which doing it your way gives us a batting avg of = 7.08%

Congratulations, I will agree to bump TT's average up by 0.41%

No computer program necessary. All you need to do is fairly select the data points independently from your results, e.g., just include the entire draft or none at all.

I do not understand your percentage "of a whole." You did not apply weights to any of the other players based upon their relative contribution, they were either a 1 or a zero. Anyway, your statistics don't prove that the trades today are less likely to net starters. If anything, they seem to suggest the opposite.

[wist43]

No computer program necessary. All you need to do is fairly select the data points independently from your results, e.g., just include the entire draft or none at all.

I do not understand your percentage "of a whole." You did not apply weights to any of the other players based upon their relative contribution, they were either a 1 or a zero. Anyway, your statistics don't prove that the trades today are less likely to net starters. If anything, they seem to suggest the opposite.

Sounds like you're well on you're way to doing your own version... I shall look forward to it my logically challenged friend - don't worry, you'll do fine

[sharpe1027]

Sounds like you're well on you're way to doing your own version... I shall look forward to it my logically challenged friend - don't worry, you'll do fine

Other posters already did another version earlier in the thread.

[LEWCWA]

I think wist is saying that by leaving the 3rd round, GB lowered the chance of netting a quality starter substanually. Why would he include rounds 1-3, if he is trying to show how many players from rounds 4-7 turned into quality players. He could show how much better TT is at finding quality starters in round 1-3, though. I think wist isn't being generous enough to some of the players in those rounds though. I count 13 that made to me some sort of quality contribution to the team......

[LEWCWA]

I have him at about 29% in rounds 4-7 and about 75% in rounds 1-3, so I understand his point of taking a player in the 3rd round and not aquiring picks.....alas my standards are lower. I give credit to say Colledge, as he made alot of contribution. Wist would say the dude sucked and was a wasted 2nd round pick....

[sharpe1027]

I think wist is saying that by leaving the 3rd round, GB lowered the chance of netting a quality starter substanually. Why would he include rounds 1-3, if he is trying to show how many players from rounds 4-7 turned into quality players. He could show how much better TT is at finding quality starters in round 1-3, though. I think wist isn't being generous enough to some of the players in those rounds though. I count 13 that made to me some sort of quality contribution to the team......

Nobody wants him to include rounds 1-3. What he did was include players in rounds 4-7 that were cut while excluding players still on the team from the same draft and also in rounds 4-7.

If you are correct about the intent of wist's post, then he would need to analyze the success rate of round three to show a comparison. There are several other problems. For example, the concept of dividing the analysis into rounds is fundamentally flawed. A pick at the end of round three is closer to a pick in round four than it is to a pick at the beginning of round three. You could try to analyze the difference in the success rate between number of picks the packers traded down. Then you could look at the success rate of the picks they gained.

In any event, it is probably not worth figuring out b/c there are simply too many variables to make a reasonable analysis.

[bobblehead]

Good grief, lol...

You're taking all the data that is known to you - read it s-l-o-w-l-y... ALL KNOWN DA-TA - say it together now... we can get a rhythm going ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!! YAY!!!!

STOMP YOUR FEET AND BANG THE TABLES!!! ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!!!

As Miss Mona Lisa Vito said, "Now I axe ya..." how can you include samples if you don't know what they are?? They are excluded from the data set, and don't influence the result one way or the other - get it??

Ok wist, you asked for a statistics expert, so I am wasting 5 mnutes.

They are all right and you are wrong in this case. You have selectively eliminated data that may not support your hypothesis. This is very similar to a global warming alarmist. I may be remembering incorrectly, but JH said the hit rate was something like 22% if you eliminate the entire drafts, so if you had 4 question marks the correct way of doing it would be to use the previous years rates, then apply a 22% X 4 unknowns for one 88% confidence "hit".

If you include the "known" misses you should also include .88 "hit" for your unknowns....or eliminate ALL of those draft picks.

By eliminating the most likely to succeed (only ones who still might) while counting the 100% flops you skew your stats and mislead.

You might be closer to accurate then the others, but you are still way off by effectively eliminating nearly one full "hit" while allowing in numerous "misses".

Ok, see you all in another year or so.

Edit: You also have not shown the success percentage of picks 1-3 which may be of a low enough rate to make TT's trades smart. If he effectively gave up 20 spots, you have to show the likely success rate of that to truly understand the effectiveness of what he did. This is why I hate statistics, because so much of it is subject to the input. We have as many as 3 names that people dispute with you who should be on the list. Many would argue that Matt Flynn should be on the list. And so on and so on.

[Bretsky]

You can't select your sample based upon the end result without skewing the data. Either include the entire draft year or exclude it. Anything else is cooking the books.

don't agree here; Wist was not saying TT sucks as a gm or is a bad drafter
what he was pointing out related to the constant trade downs
I think his point was adding all of these bodies in later rounds brings few starters % wise and it might often be better just staying with our pick or trading up more rather than adding mass picks that either don't work out or reshuffle the bottom of the roster

[pbmax]

Ok wist, you asked for a statistics expert, so I am wasting 5 mnutes.

They are all right and you are wrong in this case. You have selectively eliminated data that may not support your hypothesis. This is very similar to a global warming alarmist. I may be remembering incorrectly, but JH said the hit rate was something like 22% if you eliminate the entire drafts, so if you had 4 question marks the correct way of doing it would be to use the previous years rates, then apply a 22% X 4 unknowns for one 88% confidence "hit".

If you include the "known" misses you should also include .88 "hit" for your unknowns....or eliminate ALL of those draft picks.

By eliminating the most likely to succeed (only ones who still might) while counting the 100% flops you skew your stats and mislead.

You might be closer to accurate then the others, but you are still way off by effectively eliminating nearly one full "hit" while allowing in numerous "misses".

Ok, see you all in another year or so.

Edit: You also have not shown the success percentage of picks 1-3 which may be of a low enough rate to make TT's trades smart. If he effectively gave up 20 spots, you have to show the likely success rate of that to truly understand the effectiveness of what he did. This is why I hate statistics, because so much of it is subject to the input. We have as many as 3 names that people dispute with you who should be on the list. Many would argue that Matt Flynn should be on the list. And so on and so on.

Oh sure now you show up!

Where have you been bobble?

[rbaloha1]

Pseudo science and witch doctor crap.

None of these number factor-in system fit. My guess is TT passes on players posters like because they do not fit the system.

[falco]

Pseudo science and witch doctor crap.

None of these number factor-in system fit. My guess is TT passes on players posters like because they do not fit the system.

This makes sense. My guess is, based upon his methodical approach, is that he will trade up if they really like a player and trade down if there isn't one that stands out.

[gbgary]

o-line, safety, and wr help today please.

[Fritz]

Well, that's a pretty bogus skewing of the stats. I think it's best if you just decided to do the analysis without the last couple of years. Thompson has hit more than most late in the draft. That one is pretty clear to most--no matter what your stats say. Because it's such a crapshoot late, I think it's best to give yourself a lot of bullets. Hitting on 3 out of 10 late picks is better than hitting on 1 of 4 late picks. Anyways. It's all a bunch of nonsense if you don't know what Thompson's draft board looks like. He might have had Lacy and Ball rated evenly, figured one would drop to him (which Lacy did), picked up extra draft picks, and still gotten one of the guys he wanted. I'm sure there's been times where it hasn't worked out, but I'm guessing since he's done it so often, he's probably had what he feels is pretty good success with it. We can all bitch and moan that he might have missed out on the likes of Jesse Williams, but we have no idea if the Packers scouts really even like the player that much. Who's to say he would have even drafted him? I'm pretty sure if he really liked the player, he would have just drafted him. He has shown that he will go up and get players he really likes, he'll sit and draft a player he likes, and he'll trade down if there's a group of player he likes. It really isn't that hard to comprehend. No offense, wist. I like you and you bring spice to the board, but the constant negativity is depressing.

This is a draft where the "experts" said didn't have a lot of elite players at the top but had good depth. Thompson turned 8 picks into 12 picks in a deep draft at the expense of moving down a total of 20 spots. So, at the expense of trading down a little over a half round mostly late in the third round, he picked up two 5ths, a 6th, and a 7th round pick. That doesn't sound like a terrible deal to me. Now, whether it was a good move depends on who they would have drafted (which we'll never know) and on who they pick. He needs to hit on his first two picks and on 2-3 of these late round picks.

Harvey, I'm with ya here. I think you've nailed it.

Thompson trusts his scouting department. He sees the draft a certain way and pursues it. It should be clear by now that he's not married to a single way of doing things. After all the bitching about his unwillingness to trade up, last year he did - a few times. After all the bitching about his refusal to pick for what we thought were needs - he did.

[Guiness]

No it's not - it's the logical, scientific approach to analyzing the evidence. We weigh all of the known data, and necessarily have to exclude all unknown variables - unless you want to do like the global warming alarmists and just make shit up?? The players who are excluded from consideration are excluded b/c we don't know what they are. It's not that complicated.

Maybe it is, in fact, TT's picks you can't come to square with?? hmmmm???

As you look at the list, do you find yourself absorbed, wondering where did it all go wrong?? Then abruptly snap out of it and yell, NYET!!! NYET!!!

More grog!!!

Lies, damn lies and statistics, right?

The problem with your approach is that a pretty low success rate acceptable - if he hit on 15-20% I think most would consider that pretty good. So when you take out some potential successes out of the sample, while still counting all the misses, the hit rate goes from low to miniscule! Almost like saying he scored 0% on the ones he got wrong

I thought you were the 'glass half full' rat, but see you're the 'skeptical rat'. Close enough!

[Guiness]

Wasn't paying close attention to the draft yesterday, popped in to see our second round pick then had supper and watched an episode of GoT. Thought I heard some strange popping noises, now I know what they were - everyone's head exploding when TT traded down in the 3rd, then traded out of the round!

The trades don't bother me. With the SF trades, I'd guess there was no one he liked enough to take at the spot he was in, so he took what trade was offered, because it certainly seems like he didn't get much in return.

At least 12 drafted rookies coming to camp though. Seems like a lot, and over the past few years most of the Pack's drafted rookies (and usually one or two undrafted) rookies make the team. Does that mean 12 new faces on the Pack this year? That would be 20%, seems like a real lot for a team that won its division last year, closer to college turnover than pro.