New Analytics and Trade Charts

cowboysooner

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
112
It appears to me there are several trade charts going around that are different than the old Jimmy J. chart. These charts are supposed to have career expected value, but basically they value mid round picks more than the old charts did relative to the first round players. The salary charts start putting a negative value on 7th round picks because they so rarely work out.

I know this is how San Fran has been accumulating picks. There is a version from Meers, a version from Chase Stuart, a version that incorporates salary from a Cornell finance professor.

We lost on the old chart. We slightly win on the "new" chart. I seems obvious we should attempt to trade down with an "old chart" value team if we are now "new chart" like San Fran and New England.

Here are some links:

http://http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/

http://http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=708
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
First two links aren't working for me.

Jerry and Stephen both said last night that based on their chart they got the better value out of the trade.
 

Eddie

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,092
Reaction score
5,862
So why do we trade UP using the OLD CHART, and trade DOWN using the NEW CHART?

We give up more to move up, and take less to move down.

Doesn't make sense.
 

cowboysooner

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
112
Eddie;5062837 said:
So why do we trade UP using the OLD CHART, and trade DOWN using the NEW CHART?

We give up more to move up, and take less to move down.

Doesn't make sense.

No. It does not.

I think Dallas is actually doing a chart by their grades which obviously can't be recreated out of house. I also think we may have switched this year.

I'd like to trade down with perhaps Atlanta at 47 for a future pick. They are all in and maybe Carradine, Moore, or Okafor would be of great interest to them. Perhaps 47 for 60 and a pick next year.
 

Toruk_Makto

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
17,336
If you are sitting at 18 and of the available players nobody warrants the draft selection. Do you suck it up and pick? Or do you trade down...accumulate SOMETHING...and then still get your guy?

The answer should be obvious.

Most of the posters here would be terrible poker players. Your game theory is horrendous.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Eddie;5062837 said:
So why do we trade UP using the OLD CHART, and trade DOWN using the NEW CHART?

We give up more to move up, and take less to move down.

Doesn't make sense.
Actually, it makes perfect since if you think about it. Based on the first link, in 2012 we lost the equivalent of the 100th pick and in 2013 we gained the equivalent of a 128th pick. In both cases, the team trading down gained value.

I would say that's perfectly sound logic considering a couple factors. First, you're probably hard pressed to find perfectly equivalent trade value charts among teams, so negotiations will result in slightly one-sided trades quite often.

Second, if you're going to negotiate a deal where you want a particular player, you're probably going to have to give up value. Also, the team trading down needs to be compensated for the risk of not knowing who will be available when the team picks. Whereas the team trading up has that certainty -- and the reward -- of picking exactly who they are targeting, such that they should be more willing to give up trade value.
 

Eddie

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,092
Reaction score
5,862
Toruk_Makto;5062875 said:
If you are sitting at 18 and of the available players nobody warrants the draft selection. Do you suck it up and pick? Or do you trade down...accumulate SOMETHING...and then still get your guy?

The answer should be obvious.

Most of the posters here would be terrible poker players. Your game theory is horrendous.

If you had a $100 bill, and I offered you $80 for it ... would you take it?

Same here brother.

We didn't get proper trade value.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,870
Reaction score
11,569
theogt;5062829 said:
First two links aren't working for me.

Jerry and Stephen both said last night that based on their chart they got the better value out of the trade.

Broaddus will likely tweet the result at some point.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,870
Reaction score
11,569
theogt;5063496 said:
He has access to our trade value charts?

Yeah. He's tweeted what he claims are actual numbers from Dallas' chart.

At least from last years chart.

If you want, I'll post a couple of his tweets when I get home. Screen capped a couple.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Hoofbite;5063504 said:
Yeah. He's tweeted what he claims are actual numbers from Dallas' chart.

At least from last years chart.

If you want, I'll post a couple of his tweets when I get home. Screen capped a couple.
No, I totally believe you. But if you see him post something for this year, obviously post it, please.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,982
Reaction score
48,729
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Eddie;5062888 said:
If you had a $100 bill, and I offered you $80 for it ... would you take it?

Same here brother.

We didn't get proper trade value.
His argument is that you had to buy something now or lose your $100, and all that was left was only worth $70 (in your opinion only), then take the $80 to spend later.

it is correct.

I'm just did not agree with not taking what was there at 18, or
attempting a shorter trade dwon (even if it netted only a 4th) and make sure you get Sly Williams. if possible...and even if the chart value was worse than the SF trade.

To Me, the choices were:

  1. 18th pick for Shariff Floyd
  2. Mid 20s pick for Sly Williams and a 4th or even only a 5th
  3. 31st pick for Travis Frederick and a 3rd
They are not horrible options. I think at the time I preferred options 1 and 2 better though. If we land a real keeper with pick 74, I may think differently.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
FWIW, sloan athletics is the opposite of pff. They know professionally how to do statistical analysis. They tie plays to outcome and rank the outcomes to points and thus wins.

That is the basis of their approach.

pff has individuals watch the games and assign points ranging from -3 to 3 based on what they think of a players performance.

I am not saying that pff's method doesn't say anything. What I am talking about is what it says. There methods remind me of psych tests that most everyone remembers.

Strongly disagree, somewhat agree, no opinion, somewhat agree, strongly disagree.

Just like those psych tests, all it does is measure one man's opinion. The approach to doing that is a good one evidenced by its prevalence in psychology.

The biggest issue that I have is that they don't normalize it at all but that is a digression.

The point I am making is that I have not seen a more detailed and exhaustive statistical analysis for football. They know what they are doing.
 

cowboysooner

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
112
FuzzyLumpkins;5063560 said:
FWIW, sloan athletics is the opposite of pff. They know professionally how to do statistical analysis. They tie plays to outcome and rank the outcomes to points and thus wins.

That is the basis of their approach.

pff has individuals watch the games and assign points ranging from -3 to 3 based on what they think of a players performance.

I am not saying that pff's method doesn't say anything. What I am talking about is what it says. There methods remind me of psych tests that most everyone remembers.

Strongly disagree, somewhat agree, no opinion, somewhat agree, strongly disagree.

Just like those psych tests, all it does is measure one man's opinion. The approach to doing that is a good one evidenced by its prevalence in psychology.

The biggest issue that I have is that they don't normalize it at all but that is a digression.

The point I am making is that I have not seen a more detailed and exhaustive statistical analysis for football. They know what they are doing.

There are those that question what they are measuring (starts, pro bowls, performance like stats, etc.) There definitely debate about it.

This move seems like a change in draft philosophy, at least for a short time. Recently we have been making big moves at big money positions- rusher, corner, pass catcher, left tackle, qb).

We also value 3 down ILB because we got tired of watching Brooking and James in pass defense.

We tried to backfill interior oline which I'd argue is a quantity not quality position. (you are much better off with 4 good players than 2 very good players and a 2 scrubs.) We tried to spend big at right tackle but Free failed.

For this team, I like the idea of good not great players at positions like safety, guard and center. We can't afford great players and the difference probably does not help as much as not being putrid.

That said if Tank Carradine is at 47, please, please take him because that is fantastic value for the risk.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
cowboysooner;5063607 said:
There are those that question what they are measuring (starts, pro bowls, performance like stats, etc.) There definitely debate about it.

This move seems like a change in draft philosophy, at least for a short time. Recently we have been making big moves at big money positions- rusher, corner, pass catcher, left tackle, qb).

We also value 3 down ILB because we got tired of watching Brooking and James in pass defense.

We tried to backfill interior oline which I'd argue is a quantity not quality position. (you are much better off with 4 good players than 2 very good players and a 2 scrubs.) We tried to spend big at right tackle but Free failed.

For this team, I like the idea of good not great players at positions like safety, guard and center. We can't afford great players and the difference probably does not help as much as not being putrid.

That said if Tank Carradine is at 47, please, please take him because that is fantastic value for the risk.

Sloan counts pro bowls? That is news to me. Interesting take as for the rest
 

Disturbed

A Mere Flesh Wound
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
6
So if I understand the value charts, Dallas traded away 900 points (18th pick) for 820 points (31 and 74 picks)...essentially giving up 80 points and accepting additional risk -- not knowing who would be there.

Comparing the Cowboys (one of worst drafting teams) to one of the best in New England. Both traded back. New England traded away 640 points (29th pick) and got back 659.5 points (52, 83, 102, and 229 picks).

I am not upset with pick if it helps the OL...just would like the front office to not give away position and value.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
Disturbed;5063616 said:
So if I understand the value charts, Dallas traded away 900 points (18th pick) for 820 points (31 and 74 picks)...essentially giving up 80 points and accepting additional risk -- not knowing who would be there.

Comparing the Cowboys (one of worst drafting teams) to one of the best in New England. Both traded back. New England traded away 640 points (29th pick) and got back 659.5 points (52, 83, 102, and 229 picks).

I am not upset with pick if it helps the OL...just would like the front office to not give away position and value.

NE is not one of the best drafting teams. Look up their picks over the last decade. For every Mayo or Mankins --note the irony here-- there are a slew of failed edge rushers, RB , and CB.
 

Disturbed

A Mere Flesh Wound
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
6
FuzzyLumpkins;5063626 said:
NE is not one of the best drafting teams. Look up their picks over the last decade. For every Mayo or Mankins --note the irony here-- there are a slew of failed edge rushers, RB , and CB.

They always seem to be near the top. Who do you consider a good drafting team to compare to....?
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,683
Reaction score
12,392
Folks -- those charts are basic guides -- they aren't really written in stone - if you have a draft that is 100 players deep (i.e., good players Rounds 1-3) that should impact value differently than a draft that is only about 70 players deep.

I like the new chart as it as based on actual analyses of how players at each point the draft perform - that's a whole lot better than the arbitrary old chart
 
Top