Code and Football: How do winning teams actually draft?

[dwmyers]

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/how-do-winning-teams-actually-draft/

We’ll pick four teams out of the 32, and consider their records in that span of time.

New England Patriots: 180-92, 12 seasons 10 wins or more (8 consecutive), 15 seasons 8-8 or more.

Tennessee Titans: 135-137, 6 seasons 10 wins or more, 10 seasons 8-8 or more.

Green Bay Packers: 170-102, 11 seasons 10 wins or more, 15 seasons 8-8 or better.

Philadelphia Eagles: 154-118, 10 seasons 10 wins or more, 12 seasons 8 wins or better.

What do these four teams have in common? They accumulate draft choices, and they do so better than any other teams in football.

 

[burmafrd]

then you have the Indianapolis Colts, who probably have a better record than any of those teams; and the Steelers who are pretty consistent as well. Neither of them hoard picks. so there are different ways to do it if your organization is well run

 

[dwmyers]

The Colts are 161-111 from 1994 to now, which places them behind both the Packers and the Pats. The Steelers are 7th on that list; they don't disprove the point, they help prove it.

:starspin :starspin :starspin

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You mean you don't trade up for superstars? Because I've read that's the way you win.

 

[burmafrd]

The Colts are 161-111 from 1994 to now, which places them behind both the Packers and the Pats. The Steelers are 7th on that list; they don't disprove the point, they help prove it.



Well then lets go back to 1970 then.

How about just the last 10 years which are much more to the point. Since 1994 was just after the salary cap and FA started to show up. By 2000 people had figured things out there.

So go from 2000 to 2010. BUT then your point gets shot in the head, doesn't it?

 

[sonnyboy]

..................................................................................................................I'm starting my post way over here so you have to pan left to see what I said.

 

[dwmyers]

You mean you don't trade up for superstars? Because I've read that's the way you win.

These data suggest that teams should trade down into rounds 2 and 3 when and if they can, and pick up as many 7th rounders as possible. It's not absolute, though. We'll get into that.

I have a newer, better, improved spreadsheet, but not designed to make Burmafrd any happier. For one, some of the win-losses change when I use pro-football-reference as a resource and calculate from their data set.

I'll update my blog post and then repost back into here.

 

[dwmyers]

The new chart.

Excerpt from the updated post

Trends to notice. Teams 1-10 have 6 winning teams, and 4 losing teams. Teams 11-20 have 6 winning teams, and 4 losing teams. So it’s entirely possible to win, and win a lot, in the middle “third” or so. The bottom 12 have a success rate of 4 winners to 8 losers. It’s not the best place to be.

Ranking draft position by total wins, and then adjusting the Ravens for their 15 seasons, results in a top 10 list as so:

Patriots. 1st in draft.
Steelers. 8th in draft
Colts. 18th in draft.
Packers. 3rd in draft.
Broncos. 17th in draft
Eagles. 5th in draft
Vikings. 28th in draft.
Cowboys. 16th in draft.
Ravens. 21st in draft.
Giants. 27th in draft.

The Giants beat out the Titans for the 10th slot by half a game.

 

[burmafrd]

pretty much destroys your arguement about there being really only one way to win.

 

[dwmyers]

pretty much destroys your arguement about there being really only one way to win.

What argument ..the one you put into people's mouths?

From the time you made the claim that Indianapolis had a better record than any team that I had originally mentioned, you've just been brash, insulting, making demeaning remarks. The data set has clear trends. Top 5 are 5-0. Bottom 5 are 1-4. Teams ranked 1-10 in draft choices are 1st, 2nd, tied for 3th to 4th, and 6th in wins. Teams in the second ten don't do as well as the first third. Teams in the last third don't do as well as the first or second third of the data set.

Looking at teams that win 10 games or more .. consistent winners .. through the 17 year history of these data and there are only four. Three of the four are in the top 8 of the chart, and only one, the team with Payton Manning at QB, joins that four.

Trends are obvious to me. Doesn't make them deterministic. Your claim that I'm claiming that doesn't make it true.

You might be better off looking at teams that win that don't follow these trends and ask how they won. Bobby Beathard makes an interesting counterexample, more so than just trying to wish this data set away. Thing is, Bobby Beathard was a creature of his times. Could a GM win with that style in the modern age? Or do you, to be a consistent winner in the 7 round draft age -- that's why I picked 1994 btw, that's when the 7 round draft began -- do you have to pay attention to your choices?

D-