A Study on the effectiveness of Bum Mining

[3irty1]

.

[3irty1]

Sorry, I found a problem. Will repost.

[3irty1]

Here is the results from the pro-football reference AV numbers from 2005 to 2012:

Total Round 1-3 Player Value: 347
Total Round 1-3 Pick Cost: 13,062.00
Total Round 1-3 Cost/Value: 37.64

Total Round 4-7 Player Value: 563
Total Round 4-7 Pick Cost: 1,195.80
Total Round 4-7 Cost/Value: 2.12

Total Round 1 Player Value: 197
Total Round 1 Pick Cost: 7,500.00
Total Round 1 Cost/Value: 38.07

Total Round 2 Player Value: 110
Total Round 2 Pick Cost: 4,260.00
Total Round 2 Cost/Value: 38.73

Total Round 3 Player Value: 40
Total Round 3 Pick Cost: 1,302.00
Total Round 3 Cost/Value: 32.55

Total Round 4 Player Value: 119
Total Round 4 Pick Cost: 604.50
Total Round 4 Cost/Value: 5.08

Total Round 5 Player Value: 139
Total Round 5 Pick Cost: 331.90
Total Round 5 Cost/Value: 2.39

Total Round 6 Player Value: 120
Total Round 6 Pick Cost: 224.00
Total Round 6 Cost/Value: 1.87

Total Round 7 Player Value: 185
Total Round 7 Pick Cost: 35.40
Total Round 7 Cost/Value: 0.19

[3irty1]

JH, Here is your results:

Total Round 1-3 Player Value: 507.5
Total Round 1-3 Pick Cost: 10,752.00
Total Round 1-3 Cost/Value: 21.19

Total Round 4-7 Player Value: 330
Total Round 4-7 Pick Cost: 1,019.60
Total Round 4-7 Cost/Value: 3.09

Total Round 1 Player Value: 242.5
Total Round 1 Pick Cost: 6,250.00
Total Round 1 Cost/Value: 25.77

Total Round 2 Player Value: 172.5
Total Round 2 Pick Cost: 3,316.00
Total Round 2 Cost/Value: 19.22

Total Round 3 Player Value: 92.5
Total Round 3 Pick Cost: 1,186.00
Total Round 3 Cost/Value: 12.82

Total Round 4 Player Value: 90
Total Round 4 Pick Cost: 523.50
Total Round 4 Cost/Value: 5.82

Total Round 5 Player Value: 65
Total Round 5 Pick Cost: 296.40
Total Round 5 Cost/Value: 4.56

Total Round 6 Player Value: 100
Total Round 6 Pick Cost: 171.60
Total Round 6 Cost/Value: 1.72

Total Round 7 Player Value: 75
Total Round 7 Pick Cost: 28.10
Total Round 7 Cost/Value: 0.37

[Pugger]

I know this could be a pain but don't you also have to consider where TT is picking in each round? With parity the goal of the NFL I give TT credit for keeping us in the upper tier of teams even though we are usually drafting towards the end of each round. To me in this era a superior GM is one whose team is repeatedly successful like TT, Belichick, Newsome, Colbert and Reese.

[Guiness]

First off, well done 3irty1 - a lot of work there, and an interesting read for sure. Appreciate you bringing the discussion all into one thread, I have found myself looking around for bits and pieces of it.

Which players to include and not include is a big debate. I think you could easily add Jennings to the analysis - you mentioned in the OP that he and Collins have done nothing for us 'lately'. Well, the Pack hasn't played a game since he's been gone, that doesn't seem too long ago! He's not with the team now, but it you're analysing picks, I think he's an important data point. Collins as well, and Patler brought up another interesting one in Colledge.

I also think it's important to look at the roster overall. In my response to Woody, I looked at all the players on the roster that were 4th round or later - filling that depth and the STs is as important as anything. So I think Crosby should be included, and the UDFAs definitely should be - since that is bum mining in the extreme, by your analysis it cost nothing to get them, and it got the Pack two starting CBs, I don't know how you can ignore that! And what about benefiting from other team's bum mining? Ryan Grant cost the Pack a 6th, was well worth it and an astute use of a draft pick by TT.

Again, thanks for this 3irty1 - rep points for ya!

[cheesner]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In summation, by my undermisestimated logic


TT's hit rate in rounds 1-3 = 63.6%

TT's hit rate in rounds 4-7 = 9.09%

I think those numbers support my argument very well.

You completely missed the point. Yes the odds of hitting are less. Everyone understands that. What 3hirty1 was saying is that the trade backs increase the numbers of picks and over compensates for hitting. That is, taking a 1st round pick and trading back for 24 7th round picks (not that it is possible, but it may help you to understand) is a smart move because you should get 2 starters. That is more starters than if you hit on your 1st round pick.

What is the alternative? Wist, suppose you traded your 4-7 picks and got a mid 2nd round pick. So – you have 4 picks per season. You hit on 63.% - this gives you 2.4 players per year. It will take you 10 years to get all your starters. But you would never get there, with injuries and FA losses, you would have a forever empty roster of mostly UFAs. Presumably the 4-7th rounders were more highly regarded and better players. I understand you expect TT to fill the roster in with some street FA which he has had some success at. I'm not sure there are enough of those hits to have a competitive roster.

One other point - the influx of more of the late rounders, in the trade back scenario, should generate significantly more competition. Having a big disparity in talent - high draft picks vrs street FA level talent will not foster a competitive team environment. Additionally, the elite team members are then practicing against marginal players. I think a WR competing in practice against a probowl CB is going to advance more than practicing with a scrub.


3irty1 - Really nice work.

[wist43]

You guys are getting yourselves off track by attaching a generic value chart to TT's drafts - that says nothing abut how the actual player turned out. Validating a value chart is not the point.

I'm talking about feet on the ground, how those players turned out (starter for us), and using that data as a measure of how TT is doing at the top (rds 1-3) and bottom (4-7) of the draft.

1) JH, the guys are correct - you have to include Colledge, Jennings, et al. We are evaluating all of TT's drafts - excluding only those players that we do not know their disposition, i.e. (Perry, Neal, Sherrod, et al)

2) And guys, you can't include a player like Giacomini as a hit for TT b/c TT kicked that player to the curb for whatever reason, and once that player is cut he immediately goes into the catagory of UFA, and we got nothing from him as a draft pick.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, my original premise was starters - it has to be starters. As I said, if this is your primary means of player procurement, you better be hitting on enough starters to get ya where ya need to go.

The value chart can't evaluate what you have after the fact.

[wist43]

You completely missed the point. Yes the odds of hitting are less. Everyone understands that. What 3hirty1 was saying is that the trade backs increase the numbers of picks and over compensates for hitting. That is, taking a 1st round pick and trading back for 24 7th round picks (not that it is possible, but it may help you to understand) is a smart move because you should get 2 starters. That is more starters than if you hit on your 1st round pick.

What is the alternative? Wist, suppose you traded your 4-7 picks and got a mid 2nd round pick. So – you have 4 picks per season. You hit on 63.% - this gives you 2.4 players per year. It will take you 10 years to get all your starters. But you would never get there, with injuries and FA losses, you would have a forever empty roster of mostly UFAs. Presumably the 4-7th rounders were more highly regarded and better players. I understand you expect TT to fill the roster in with some street FA which he has had some success at. I'm not sure there are enough of those hits to have a competitive roster.

One other point - the influx of more of the late rounders, in the trade back scenario, should generate significantly more competition. Having a big disparity in talent - high draft picks vrs street FA level talent will not foster a competitive team environment. Additionally, the elite team members are then practicing against marginal players. I think a WR competing in practice against a probowl CB is going to advance more than practicing with a scrub.


3irty1 - Really nice work.

This post is bogus Cheesner... not a very sturdy strawman.

You're assigning to me an advocation of abandoning lower round picks, as if I believe that the draft has no value after the 3rd round. When have I said that?? I'm the one who stated the original premise, pretty sure I'm not missing the point

Missing the point would be evaluating post-draft players with a pre-draft value chart. The point is not to validate a value chart, but to evaluate TT's drafts.

It is you guys who are missing the point.

[wist43]

Those value numbers are merely the sum of the point values for all picks in the round(s) as given by the draft trade chart I linked to.

One point that I'd like to get opinions on, espeically wist, is the idea of player coefficients. By not including them, it assumes an underlying philosophy that a team is only as good as its worst starter. Do you feel that's right?

What to do with Greg Jennings? He's been a good packer, but his value no longer counts for us. If this is a measure of all the picks we had to make to procure the roster we've got... we took Greg Jennings and now he's not on the team. The benefit to that pick is almost over. I say almost because he'll net us a comp pick in 2014 and that pick will add value in a measurable way. I don't feel we can include Jennings, Collins, Colledge, etc. As far as 2013 is concerned... those guys are bums.

I agree its too early to use many of the players from the last two drafts. Cobb can be counted, probably Hayward as well. I'll update this in the afternoon and post the results.

Like I said to Cheesner, I think you're missing the point... I understand that you're trying to establish a means to assign a value to each player, but that's highly subjective. For that reason, it becomes GIGO. You can make the result say anything you want.

Beyond that you'd have to find a means to account for salaries. Take Rodgers - best player, highest salary, highest rated everything... you'd have to account for the negative feedbacks of his salary. If he eats up 20% of your cap, how much does that hurt your player retention and procurement. It likely wouldn't affect our procurement b/c we don't spend money in FA, but it certainly could affect our retention (Jennings - c ya)... on and on.

There are so many variables that the original point gets lost. No matter what, we need to be hitting on more of these lower round picks than we have been - or, we need to fill those holes with low-cost veterans; which TT rarely does.

Your coefficient idea would be necessary if your goal is to come up with a value for the Packers roster - I just think there are too many variables and we need to keep it simple. If Rodgers carried too much weight as a 1st round pick, he could even show up as an outlier. The truth is, GM's hit on players from all over the place. Kurt Warner was in our training camp, and was bagging groceries... next second he's league MVP. Brady was a 6th round pick, etc...

We have to look at TT as an individual GM, and what his batting average is in various areas of the draft.

[Cleft Crusty]

We have to look at TT as an individual GM, and what his batting average is in various areas of the draft.

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

[3irty1]

We're not evaluating post-draft players with a pre-draft value chart. We're evaluating where is the appropriate level of "bum mining" is using player evaluations and a pre-draft value chart.

People don't think in terms of exponential decay which is what the value of draft picks are. Every draft class is the good half of a bell curve, that's where the values on the pre-draft chart come from. So hypothetically say we had a completely unsaturated exchange on our draft picks, i.g., we could trade all our picks to get the whole 6th and 7th round... or trade all our picks to move up 5 spots in round 1... or anything in between like trade all our draft picks for the first 13 picks in round 4. In that world where should Ted Thompson be drafting to make the most of his picks within the constraints of an NFL roster?

[3irty1]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

Nice to see you. Also good point.

[Cleft Crusty]

People don't think in terms of exponential decay....

I think in those terms with respect to my body

[RashanGary]

Its slightly frightening how close Justin was to Rodgers and Matthews.

I'm really not as stupid as I seem.