Article on why trading down is good strategy, why teams ignore it

honyock

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
702
Two economists looked at 15 years of draft data, correlated it to player and team success, and came to the conclusion that it's a winning strategy over time to trade down. They believe that most teams/gm's overvalue their ability to evaluate talent, end up falling in love with particular players and get tempted to trade up when they should be trading down.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448...asic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally

But here's the thing: despite years of data, most NFL teams still have no idea how to work the draft most effectively.

It's not their imperfect player evaluation, but something more basic — their refusal to follow the principle of risk diversification. That's the conclusion economists Cade Massey and Richard Thaler came to after analyzingfifteen years of draft data in a series of papers — and it's still true, despite recent changes to the wages rookies are paid.

Draft picks can be traded, and the success of any one player picked is highly uncertain. Because of that, their data says that in the current trade market, teams arealways better off trading down — that is, trading one high pick for multiple lower ones — but many teams become overconfident in their evaluation of one particular player and do the exact opposite: package several low picks for the right to take one player very early.

"There are one or two teams out there that philosophically follow this idea," says Massey, who serves as a draft consultant with several NFL teams that he can't disclose. "But in my experience, teams always say they're on board with it in January. Then when April rolls around, and they've been preparing for the draft for a long time, they fall in love with players, get more and more confident in their analysis, and fall back into the same patterns."
 

nathanlt

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,042
Reaction score
3,045
Two economists looked at 15 years of draft data, correlated it to player and team success, and came to the conclusion that it's a winning strategy over time to trade down. They believe that most teams/gm's overvalue their ability to evaluate talent, end up falling in love with particular players and get tempted to trade up when they should be trading down.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448...asic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally

I absolutely agree. More players drafted means that your risk is spread over multiple pairs of knees, which increases the chance that you'll get past the injury bug.
 

KB1122

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,328
Reaction score
1,629
But if more teams traded down then there would be fewer teams to trade up. Which in turn would mean the team trading down would get less value. Which means it would be a less effective strategy.
 

honyock

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
702
But if more teams traded down then there would be fewer teams to trade up. Which in turn would mean the team trading down would get less value. Which means it would be a less effective strategy.

Correcto. Here's what the two researchers said about that very observation:

"If all teams took note of these findings and corrected their behavior, the principles would no longer apply. Teams would be much less interested in trading up, so the lucrative market for trading down would evaporate.

Why hasn't this happened? One answer is a widely-known psychological bias called the overconfidence effect. As people are given more information, the accuracy of their analysis often hits a ceiling, but their confidence in it continues to increase.

This tendency has been demonstrated in all sorts of areas, from bettors picking horses to psychologists making diagnoses. It's not hard to imagine that NFL general managers — who are given scouting reports on players that cover everything from their body fat percentage to their home life — fall victim to the same sort of overconfidence and, as Massey said, "fall in love" with certain players.

There's also the fact that the sports world as a whole tends to glamorize superstars — leading many to disproportionately attribute a 53-player roster's success to one or two highly drafted players. For a struggling GM, it might seem much easier to trade up and land a guaranteed superstar than patiently fill a roster with competent players."
 

BulletBob

The Godfather
Messages
2,597
Reaction score
1,279
I really thought a lot about this article and it makes a ton of sense. The whole thing is a crapshoot. I think it's also one of the root causes that we have parity in the league. If a team would just get by the ego of thinking they have better talent evaluators than everyone else and follow the risk diversification model inherent in economics (i.e., accumulate as many draft picks as possible), then they might develop an edge. The article indicates that two of the NFL teams have started practicing it (and hints that Baltimore is one of them).

If we were to follow this model this year, our best move would be to trade down to San Francisco's pick, or better yet, out of the first round entirely to one of the teams in the top of the second who are trying to trade up and get a QB in the first. It would take a king's ransom, and Dallas would accumulate a bunch of picks greatly enhancing the chances of getting starters out of that bunch.

In short, this article game-changed my entire thinking on the draft. Thanks for posting, honyock!
 

honyock

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
702
I really thought a lot about this article and it makes a ton of sense. The whole thing is a crapshoot. I think it's also one of the root causes that we have parity in the league. If a team would just get by the ego of thinking they have better talent evaluators than everyone else and follow the risk diversification model inherent in economics (i.e., accumulate as many draft picks as possible), then they might develop an edge. The article indicates that two of the NFL teams have started practicing it (and hints that Baltimore is one of them).

If we were to follow this model this year, our best move would be to trade down to San Francisco's pick, or better yet, out of the first round entirely to one of the teams in the top of the second who are trying to trade up and get a QB in the first. It would take a king's ransom, and Dallas would accumulate a bunch of picks greatly enhancing the chances of getting starters out of that bunch.

In short, this article game-changed my entire thinking on the draft. Thanks for posting, honyock!

Thanks. I wonder if the other team they were talking about is New England. I'd like to see their record of draft day trades over the past decade or so...I've had the impression they have done more trading down than trading up. And I think you're right about Dallas this year. I'm more on board now with not getting desperate for Donald or Barr, and trading down to late first or even early second. It'd be nice to get four/five picks in the top 100.
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,663
Reaction score
86,202
I agree. You better be trading up for a QB or a guy you know is a Superstar.


If you need a lot of solid role players, like we do, then trading down is the best option.
 
Top