WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[Bob Sacamano]

So, if this is true, what is the point of this thread to begin with?

I realize it is late, but I thought your whole point was to scare everyone with the alarming bust percentage at WR in comparison to the other two.

Are you always this wishy-washy in general?

OMG

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, if this is true, what is the point of this thread to begin with?

I realize it is late, but I thought your whole point was to scare everyone with the alarming bust percentage at WR in comparison to the other two.

Are you always this wishy-washy in general?

actually no im not. my point is that the success or failure of a WR in the draft has no bearing on the success or failure of a OT. As such they are unrelated statistically and finding a weighted average is pointless.

im not being wishy washy im just making a point. you can still draw a conclusion. and i now understand where the confusion is.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

actually no im not. my point is that the success or failure of a WR in the draft has no bearing on the success or failure of a OT. As such they are unrelated statistically and finding a weighted average is pointless.

im not being wishy washy im just making a point. you can still draw a conclusion. and i now understand where the confusion is.

do you even know what you're talking about now? go read theo's reply to you again

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm not talking about weighted averages, but you need further analysis because otherwise it tells you nothing.

You can say 50% of WRs bust and 33% of OTs bust, but that doesn't tell you whether it's better to draft an OT or a WR.

this is what you responded to fuzzy, and which brought out Alex's response

someone close this thread, or at least give Fuzzy some red-bull, crack, heroin...speed

 

[Alexander]

actually no im not. my point is that the success or failure of a WR in the draft has no bearing on the success or failure of a OT. As such they are unrelated statistically and finding a weighted average is pointless.

im not being wishy washy im just making a point. you can still draw a conclusion. and i now understand where the confusion is.

King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
King Arthur: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
[They fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur: Victory is mine!
[Kneels to pray]
King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[Cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid *******. You've got no arms left!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
King Arthur: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
[They fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur: Victory is mine!
[Kneels to pray]
King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[Cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid *******. You've got no arms left!

:laugh2: :laugh1:

that just fits so perfectly

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

do you even know what you're talking about now? go read theo's reply to you again

i know exactly what im talking about. it would make sesne if i had a striation of say 5 variables on the outcome of success on a OT.

Say you had 50% rated 1s 20% rated 2s 10% rated 3s 10% rated 4 and 10% rated 5. Then prima facia it may be difficult to evaluate so you take the weighted average and get the expected return.

When you only have tow variables that are depepndent then its obviosu.

 

[Alexander]

depepndent then its obviosu.

Go to bed, Fuzzy.

I know I am.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

this page has got to be the funniest ever, I'm out

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Go to bed, Fuzzy.

I know I am.

nah im redoing my list and how can you say morton was a bust?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well I learned a few things. First of all I dont know jack about linemen from the eighties, Alex has no idea how to evaluate WR and Theo has no idea how weighted averages work on an expected return.

With WR the figure ends up the same. Curtis Conway becomes a boom he had 3 1000 yard seasons and Ike Hilliard became a bust with his 575 pyards average. I flip flopped Leslie and Stallworth although i dont think it really matters so in the end it stays at 49%.

With DE Alexs big misconception was that a quality starter wasnt a boom but despite this i missed the boat on the early guys pretty bad and there were 7 more busts than before. And yes a dead guy didnt work out for them so he busted. It changes to 42% busts.

With OT, you end up with Alex again missing the boat on what a boom consisted of. My standard was a quality starter. Davis, Harlow, Riley Shelton and McKinney all wre qulaity starters. Hinton moved to a boom and i removed Columbo entirely. Tackles became 19 of 63 for 30%.

Overall the conclusion is the same of the three WR is still the riskiest position to choose in the first round historically. if all three are there you choose the tackle if none are needed over the other.

Ill deal with Theo now. The only statistically dependent variables are bust and boom. So if you have 33% that are busts and 67% that are booms the expected return would be ((.33*0)+(.67*1)=.67. As such the percentage given is self evident. Essentially take the boom rate and there is your expected return. So the expected value of OT is .7, DE is .58 and WR is .51.

Now if you want to be obnoxious and claim that values such as OT, WR and DE are dependent then the first thing you would need to do is apply a numerical value to the positions. Now i suppose you could establish a worth to that but what you would end up with would be the overall expected value picking at that spot and it wouldnt weigh it one way or another towards a position. Ie if we pick 22 we will get a player of .55 value. That tells us nothing.

In short Theo has no idea what he was talking about. I got confused because of this and assumed he meant something else. Alex though that because I knew my list wasnt perfect and he pointed that out he proved something. And Summer well Summer is a follower not a leader. However i maintain that WRis the riskiest postion in the first round.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
King Arthur: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
[They fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur: Victory is mine!
[Kneels to pray]
King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[Cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid *******. You've got no arms left!

You know Alex not everything you say is right and everything that I say is just ignoring the wonder that is your thought. You can be smug and condescending all you want but it amounts to little.

I imagine you have no idea how statistics work. Expected returns give you the ability to get a single value when you have several different probabilities. When I say they are independent it means they can be evaluated independently. That doesnt make me wishywashy what it does is make you clueless.

Furthermore onmany of the older linemen i missed the boat apparently but when I look at your WR analysis Im just boggled. You say that Westbrook who only had one deceent season his whole career should a boom but Johnnie Morton who had 4 1000 yard season and 6 900 yard season should be a bust?

It works both ways and at least im not an arrogant arse that thinks that every word i say is gospel. Summer is quite the sycophant but dear lord you are pompous.

 

[Hostile]

Actually whats sad is that in 10+ hes the first one to actually look at my list. When I made this list i did it in an hour and I figured that the majority of the discussion would be about the labels and where their were disagreements.

But only Alex has looked at it and he doesnt disagree with my labels but just wanted to take a shot at me.

I looked at your list Fuzz. I just felt it was incomplete because it discusses only the 1st round. If you could show that probability for success goes up in subsequent rounds then I would agree that taking a WR in the 1st is a bad idea.

Comparing WR to other positions didn't work for me either, because success at WR hinges upon other factors such as a QB who can even get you the ball. Not saying that every position doesn't have this, but WR absolutely has to have the ball thrown to him in order to have an impact.

No doubt about it, it's the hardest position to hit on and the easiest to miss on when it comes to the draft. In that I agree with you. I still think it is one of the top 2 primary needs on this team, and there is a surplus of talent for us to address the need.

But make no mistake about it, I did look at your list in depth and considered it long before I chose to respond, and when I did respond it wasn't to pile on. That is why I didn't focus on your analysis player by player even though I disagreed with a lot of them. Some have been pointed out by others. I responded strictly on the empirical value of saying WR in the first should be avoided since that is the premise of the thread. I felt that nit picking beyond the premise was in poor taste. Had I known you wanted an in depth discussion of how to judge whether the evaluations were accurate I certainly would have done it, though there would have had to be more conclusions than just boom or bust and I would need to know what the criteria was.

I probably also would have called the 2 categories hits or misses if I was sticking with just 2 and I would have had a factor in their about longevity. Especially if it is with one team, or at least as a starter. To me that signifies that the player has some value to the team.

 

[Alexander]

nah im redoing my list and how can you say morton was a bust?

Morton was an oversight. Poor job of cutting and pasting on my part.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

I hope the Cowboys draft Dwayne Jarrett.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I hope the Cowboys trade down from #22.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I hope the Cowboys trade down from #22.

As I mentioned in another thread.......I've been saying CB or WR all aong but don't be surprised if we do trade down. I'd say at least a 50% chance of that happening.

 

[Alexander]

With WR the figure ends up the same. Curtis Conway becomes a boom he had 3 1000 yard seasons and Ike Hilliard became a bust with his 575 pyards average. I flip flopped Leslie and Stallworth although i dont think it really matters so in the end it stays at 49%.

With DE Alexs big misconception was that a quality starter wasnt a boom but despite this i missed the boat on the early guys pretty bad and there were 7 more busts than before. And yes a dead guy didnt work out for them so he busted. It changes to 42% busts.

And being since you claim to know how statistics work, if you take the 42% and 49%, that's not a truly significant difference.

I would maintain that DE and WR are very similar, you have just as many reaches because teams are eager to fill those crucial positions and can fool themselves by putting too much weight in workout numbers. You can go pick out five-ten players on each list that were huge risks even without the benefit of foresight and that is because of this tendency.

With OT, you end up with Alex again missing the boat on what a boom consisted of. My standard was a quality starter. Davis, Harlow, Riley Shelton and McKinney all wre qulaity starters. Hinton moved to a boom and i removed Columbo entirely. Tackles became 19 of 63 for 30%.

What can you say is a "quality starter"?

That's neither here nor there. Fact is, if you just compared OL and WR, that's not really debateable. Instead you applied fuzzy logic and math to an inexact science and tried to pawn it off as fact.

Receivers have many factors which determine how they are graded and analyzed, linemen are much simpler in that respect. If you go back in this thread, that's a simple point I made quite a while ago.

OL are easier to grade and their significance/success is less reliant on other factors. WR are often in higher demand, are reached for more often and their success can and does rely on who is delivering them the football and the type of offense being run. Receivers often have to face several years of development, even the great ones. Jerry Rice himself was not great his rookie year. They are at the mercy of many other factors. Linemen have it much simple and are easier to spot in terms of their feasibility at the next level.

Your analysis proves nothing other than the fact that the WR position is more difficult to analyse and that teams push choices at the position hoping to hit gold.

Fear should only enter into the equation if you believe the team is hell bent on selecting a WR. Typically, no matter the overall talent of the draft class, teams draft anywhere from 5-7 in the round, it is just what happens. In those numbers, you will have a reach or two. I doubt that occurs this year with perhaps one of the deepest and most talented groups of the last decade.

We aren't in that position.

 

[theogt]

you do understand that the success rates of OT, WR and DE are independent right? expected retun is a weighted average by definition. and you say i dont know what im talking about.

Goodness. Expected return can involve weighted average, but it does not necessarily involve weighted average by definition. The proposal I suggested earlier in the thread didn't involved weighted average. It may take such an analysis to truly understand whether drafting a WR is a good idea or not, but that only goes to show that your original analysis is assuredly incomplete.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Goodness. Expected return can involve weighted average, but it does not necessarily involve weighted average by definition. The proposal I suggested earlier in the thread didn't involved weighted average. It may take such an analysis to truly understand whether drafting a WR is a good idea or not, but that only goes to show that your original analysis is assuredly incomplete.

Actually, Theo yeah it does. Whether your dealing with finance, population mechanics or gambling, expected returns is a weighted average of the probabilities. It is you that have no idea what you are talking about. By definition it is a summation of the product of the constituent probability and arbitrary value. ANd you have the audacity to tell me I dont know what im talking about.

Furthermore I demonstrated how in a scenario where the set of outcomes is two ie s={boom, bust} that the expected reurn is evident with the base probabilities. I also pointed out how attempting to use the set s = {OT, WR, DE} is absurd and even if reasonable would do nothing to evaluate the differences in desirability.

So even if it wasnt a weighted which it is no matter how you say otherwise it is very clear that in this csae that you have no point.

Anything else you would like to throw out there and see if it sticks?