WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[theogt]

If you have 33.3% chance of returns of $10, your expected return is $3.33. That does not include weighted average.

You could, however, have 30% chacne of a return of $10 and a 20% chance of a return of $5. To determine expected return you would have to include weighted average.

I hope this has helped your understanding.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

Very good read

No reason why we can't get a Steve Smith or Jason Hill or Paul Williams in the 3rd or so and be okay right now.

In the first get an Aaron Ross.

He will be gone in 2nd Round.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

The percent difference of WR and OL normalized to 100 is |(42-49/(42+49+30/3)| = 17.4%. i dont know about you but a return of 17% error has always been significant. If you just want to look at the raw values anything over 5% is significant.

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.

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.

Well Alex i certainly can appreiciate this type of discussion moreso than the condescension from last night but i have to disagree very much so. For all of your talks of reaches WR was the only position in the last 25 years where teams actually stayed away from drafting one in the first round. We picked Alex Wright in the second that year.

I also would not disagree by any means that WR is the more difficult position to evaluate. That is exactly why teams bust on them so often and I think when making a decision it prudent to consider it.

you call that fear I call it rational decision making. If the WR is the clear BPA then you pick them, if you have a team need that is clearly WR then you pick one but barring that to not consider the higher risk is jsut not good decision making in my opinion.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

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.

Based on what?

A dream.

A gut feeling?

Jerry Jones on speed dial?

Please elaborate....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you have 33.3% chance of returns of $10, your expected return is $3.33. That does not include weighted average.

You could, however, have 30% chacne of a return of $10 and a 20% chance of a return of $5. To determine expected return you would have to include weighted average.

I hope this has helped your understanding.

what is the mean of a set of 1?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

no i understand that and its pointless to hammer you for it. but it should put in perspective your tirade last night. Out of 6 WRs you erred on 1. I was working with over 200 players.

Although i do appreciate your input esp on the DE. I truly was not familiar with the players from the eighties.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Actually Hos i appreciated our discussion. It helped me clarify my stance. If you feel that WR is a top need then it is very reasonable that you want one in the first round.

And longevity wsa an important role. It is why i classified David Boston as a bust and Antone Davis, a good run blocker, a boom.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you have 33.3% chance of returns of $10, your expected return is $3.33. That does not include weighted average.

You could, however, have 30% chacne of a return of $10 and a 20% chance of a return of $5. To determine expected return you would have to include weighted average.

I hope this has helped your understanding.

You are aware that the mathematical definition is a summation. Just because its x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0........ does not prohibit it from being a weighted average. youre talking just talking about a set of 1 nonzero value.

i hope this has helped your understanding. You really shouldnt try and be condescending with me when it comes to mathematics.

 

[theogt]

Actually Hos i appreciated our discussion. It helped me clarify my stance. If you feel that WR is a top need then it is very reasonable that you want one in the first round.

And longevity wsa an important role. It is why i classified David Boston as a bust and Antone Davis, a good run blocker, a boom.

...only if the expected return of drafting a WR is worth more to you than the expected return of any other position drafted.

 

[theogt]

You are aware that the mathematical definition is a summation. Just because its x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0........ does not prohibit it from being a weighted average. youre talking just talking about a set of 1 nonzero value.

i hope this has helped your understanding. You really shouldnt try and be condescending with me when it comes to mathematics.

Yes, I understand that X is the sum of two numbers, X and 0. However, you wouldn't go around saying "X+0" when you're referring to "X" would you? Of course not. So, weighted average isn't, by definition, included in an expected value determination.

By definition, it could possibly be included, however.

 

[superpunk]

Harry, we're going to need the definition of the derivative down here - STAT.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Harry, we're going to need the definition of the derivative down here - STAT.

I think ogt & fuzzy should just get a room...

 

[jackrussell]

Let y = f(x) be a function. The derivative of f is the function whose value at x is the limit

= we need a young WR

 

[superpunk]

Let y = f(x) be a function. The derivative of f is the function whose value at x is the limit

= we need a young WR

:laugh2: thread over. You just solved for Robert Meachem. (or any of the assortment of talented WRs and DBs that will be available at our spot)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

...only if the expected return of drafting a WR is worth more to you than the expected return of any other position drafted.

Theo quit acting like you are making a point. i have already shown you haw expected return is not necessary to evaluate statistics especially when the expected return is self evident to anyone with a developed frontal lobe and a 3rd grade math education.

you dont respond to that just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your numbering system and just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your stated need for looking at round 2-7, just like you didnt repsond to being able to find a mean of a set of one nonzero value. Actually you dont respnd to anything, you just blather the same tripe over and over again.

What are you going to say that im insane again or some othe ad hominem? How about you leave this thread again and wait until you think someone actually does make a good point and then compare me to an iraqi propaganda minister again? that was fun.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let y = f(x) be a function. The derivative of f is the function whose value at x is the limit

= we need a young WR

that is the simple definition of a derivative. Calculus outside of intergrals has no bearing in this discussion and that is if you have a continuous function as your set of values versus the step functions weve been looking at. Wow youre really making a point there.

there were two people that said I didnt know what I was talking about statistically so i had to show that I did. You will also notice that when it gets down to the nitty gritty they have nothing to say.

 

[jackrussell]

:laugh2: thread over.

ray2:

 

[theogt]

Theo quit acting like you are making a point. i have already shown you haw expected return is not necessary to evaluate statistics especially when the expected return is self evident to anyone with a developed frontal lobe and a 3rd grade math education.

you dont respond to that just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your numbering system and just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your stated need for looking at round 2-7, just like you didnt repsond to being able to find a mean of a set of one nonzero value. Actually you dont respnd to anything, you just blather the same tripe over and over again.

What are you going to say that im insane again or some othe ad hominem? How about you leave this thread again and wait until you think someone actually does make a good point and then compare me to an iraqi propaganda minister again? that was fun.

You still haven't quite figured out what expected value means. Once you do, I'm sure you'll experience an overwhelming sense of embarassment.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still haven't quite figured out what expected value means. Once you do, I'm sure you'll experience an overwhelming sense of embarassment.

I took engineering statistics. I even went so far as to go look at my notes on the subject and really all I have to say is just shut up Theo. If you could put me in my place and actually explain it you would have. You cant so just shut up.

 

[theogt]

Theo quit acting like you are making a point. i have already shown you haw expected return is not necessary to evaluate statistics especially when the expected return is self evident to anyone with a developed frontal lobe and a 3rd grade math education.

Actually, no you haven't. You've simply stated, "expected value isn't necessary" or some such line and expected me or anyone else to take your word at face value.

you dont respond to that just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your numbering system

Yes, I did.

and just like you didnt respond to the refutation of your stated need for looking at round 2-7

Didn't catch it. What was that again?

just like you didnt repsond to being able to find a mean of a set of one nonzero value.

What's your point? I responded to the more elaborate post on the same subject. Do I honestly have to reply to every single post, even if they say the same thing?

Actually you dont respnd to anything, you just blather the same tripe over and over again.

Sure, I did.

What are you going to say that im insane again or some othe ad hominem? How about you leave this thread again and wait until you think someone actually does make a good point and then compare me to an iraqi propaganda minister again? that was fun.

How bout you spend some time actually coming up with some useful analysis, rather than wasting everyone's time trying to explain to you how yours is inadequate and useless.