1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Jonathan Bales on draft grades

Discussion in 'Draft Zone' started by Common Sense, May 12, 2014.

  1. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,703 Messages
    2,557 Likes Received
    Of course if there was some objective probability ranking to go by then you could judge on the basis of reality. That is clearly not the case though. It's all opinion.
  2. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    8,187 Messages
    2,590 Likes Received
    Of course they did
    Everything has an error built into it, overtime you find out who was better at it than others

    There are clearly GMs who have a sound process and others who don't
    That translates directly to team success, it may not happen in 1 year but it does over time (and that does not mean 10 years)

    By the same token , there are GMs whose process has been shown to be a failure and no amount of lipstick will change that pig into anything but a pig . Using that process you will sometimes luck into a player but this will not happen consistently enough for the team to have real long term success, it may be a flash in the pan for a year when 'you catch lightning in a bottle' but that is all it will be.
    There are real reasons why our fans cling to slogans like hope and believe..... In its current structure this organization is lumped with the redskins, raiders, and browns not patriots, niners, Seahawks and I don't see much reason to change that.
    Bales' points are very good ones. They just happen to hit close to home so some feathers are ruffled. You think ravens and niners fans are up in arms about what he said?
    Fuzzy has 2 schticks, you tube pretend scout and blame the messenger so I don't take him too seriously
  3. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    24,142 Messages
    2,742 Likes Received
    Didn't ruffle my feathers, that's for sure.
  4. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,441 Messages
    2,175 Likes Received
    We can go round and round about any of these kinds of discussions till the Cows come home but the ultimate grade is if you win a Championship.
    visionary likes this.
  5. The Cleaner

    The Cleaner New Member

    2 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    I'm not a football professional, so I can't speak to the scouting side of things, but I can speak about statistics with authority. What Bales is saying is misleading. First of all, it can't be proven that individual drafters return to the mean with the quality of their picks, it can only be shown that there is not sufficient evidence that they pick better than chance. Those are two very different things. Even if this could be proven, the picks you make one year are not independent of the picks you make a second year, and so any causal explanation is questionable. It may be harder to pick successfully in the draft if you have been successful in the past for some reason - that is an alternative explanation for returning to the mean.
    Secondly, the kinds of statistical analyses that can be done in football are limited by the small sample size of much of the analysis. Statistical findings may be non-significant due to something actual not being significant, or they may be non-significant due to a lack of statistical power. Statistics are generally used in football in situations where there is a large enough sample size - so you might group football players historically according to position and examine objective measures that predict success at that position. You can't use statistics to analyze more specific situations - how well a drafted player will do as a 1 technique under Marinelli - because the sample size will be too small. Also, there are a lot of subjective and arbitrary decisions that need to be made in a statistical analysis - like defining the success of a particular player, or deciding how far back to analyze players.
    Bales seems to say that using predictive stats is better than scouting for the draft, but there is absolutely no evidence for this. He can say that his predictive stats better predict player success according to some measure of success historically, but that is a lot different than having to go pick the players yourself. A lot of the specific factors that get averaged out in a large analysis come in to play when you are the GM of a specific team. Or to put in simple terms - the best player for the average NFL team may not be the best player for the Dallas Cowboys. It probably wouldn't even be possible to really test Bale's hypothesis, because if a lot of teams starting picking in a Bales approved way, it would change the nature of the draft and the historical data wouldn't be predictive anymore, and if only a few teams did this, then it would take too long too build up statistical power to test his hypothesis and the game would have changed by then anyhow.
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    79,624 Messages
    4,631 Likes Received
    I agree there have been many players that scouts have over valued and turned out to be major bust and yet guys picked late being under valued who have turned out to be HOF players.
  7. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    8,187 Messages
    2,590 Likes Received
    What you say is very accurate and part of limitation even beyond this us the statistics , by their very nature, are limited to "0" or "1" and cannot be used to evaluate other aspects if the game like attitude, leadership, heart, how one players impacts another's game and on and on. However, there are clearly GMs and organizations that do have a system that works over long term (like steelers, patriots, etc) or at least over several years (like niners, GB, Seahawks) which allows them to remain truly competitive and in the hunt year after year . Contrast thus with organizations that want to catch lightning in a bottle and whose plan is 'anything can happen' or this might be our year so it's all good.

    Clearly there is way to do it and a way not to

    There clearly is also a role for short term process evualuation because that process has been in place for several years, so you have long term rests from which you can learn about your process

    All successful major organizations work this way, it is called process improvement

    Some don't want to hear this and would rather bury their heads in sand
  8. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    8,187 Messages
    2,590 Likes Received
    Another thing is that good football organizations probably use a combination of "scouting" and statistics/metrics
  9. SilverStarCowboy

    SilverStarCowboy The Actualist

    7,531 Messages
    425 Likes Received
    This Bale guy is a friggin' geinus main.


    [IMG]
  10. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,605 Messages
    2,986 Likes Received
    No it isn't. You can draft 7 guys who don't start and win a championship. Is that good drafting? Or were you already good? Or did you get a little luck?

    Oversimplification is not good.
  11. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    8,187 Messages
    2,590 Likes Received
    Neither is believing that nothing works at it is all random

    Some teams have found a method that increases their chances of remaining truly competitive year after year and it does not include throwing darts
  12. waving monkey

    waving monkey Well-Known Member

    2,572 Messages
    1,080 Likes Received
    red herring
  13. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,703 Messages
    2,557 Likes Received
    Is he trying to say that the Cowboys ignore statistics?

    I am not sure but I know that they have people at the Sloan Conferences every year.
    Common Sense likes this.
  14. waving monkey

    waving monkey Well-Known Member

    2,572 Messages
    1,080 Likes Received
    I think his saying they use blood hounds for scouts and can't turn on a computer
  15. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,441 Messages
    2,175 Likes Received
    Not in my book. It takes 53 guys to win a championship. At some point, you have to have drafted well to have a roster that is good enough to win. All things are measured, in the NFL, by how many championships you win. If you draft 7 crappy guys but you win a championship that year, then it stands to reason that you probably didn't draft 7 crappy guys. You probably drafted very well in years past and the 7 you drafted this year just aren't good enough to make a Championship caliber roster. No shame in that IMO. Just kinda how it works.

    At the end of the day, the object is to build your team so well that guys are not making the team real often, through the draft. Then, you know you've done your job as a personnel man. You've built a strong team through the draft and it's winning championships that is the ultimate and undisputed proof of that.
    visionary likes this.
  16. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    8,187 Messages
    2,590 Likes Received
    "He" never said that
    It was part of "his" larger response to the post by the cleaner
  17. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    14,600 Messages
    6,465 Likes Received
    Bales is a wanna-be statistical analyst.

    There is a group of people out there with spreadsheets and no formal education or training in math/statistics that have anointed themselves experts in statistical analysis.

    They are convinced that they can prove all kinds of things in sports with statistics. Their favorite term is correlation.
    Common Sense likes this.
  18. Sarge

    Sarge Red, White and brew... Staff Member

    21,411 Messages
    2,176 Likes Received
    You can grade a draft anytime you like. Having said that, your "grade"can vary a tremendous amount from year to year. Frankly, I could care less about grading a draft.

Share This Page