Jump to content

Final Draft Grades


Recommended Posts

Cleveland 916.59 A+
Buffalo 770.09 A
Indianapolis 768.44 A
New Orleans 746.27 A
San Francisco 711.18 A-
Baltimore 654.97 B+
Cincinnati 644.78 B+
Los Angeles Chargers 575.56 B
Minnesota 536.36 B
Jacksonville 511.01 B-
Miami 504.48 B-
Denver 498.9 C+
Seatlle 482.13 C+
Washington 481.72 C+
Carolina 469.95 C+
New England 462.52 C+
New York Jets 400.48 C
Tampa Bay 377.29 C
Dallas 364.17 C
Green Bay 340.15 C
Arizona 328.05 C
Houston 316.74 C
Tennessee 301.42 C
Detroit 280.15 C-
Oakland 274.67 C-
New York Giants 269.49 C-
Philadelphia 267.52 C-
Pittsburgh 240.11 D+
Los Angeles Rams 180.74 D
Atlanta 153.6 D-
Kansas City 149.17 F
Chicago 147.35 F

 

I've been playing with numbers relative to the draft for years.  The math is mind-numbing, but basically, players are assigned a value based on pre-draft rankings (from multiple sources).  Each team is assigned pick values based on what they have coming into the draft.  As players are added, their value is assigned to their new team.  Traded future picks are accounted for, as well.  Total player value added is a primary factor, but "pick efficiency" is used to adjust it.  As much as it pains me to say it, Cleveland destroyed this draft.

 

Anyway, if you want to hear me talk about these numbers, red flags, and drafted quarterbacks, check out the show... https://soundcloud.com/user-692411087/ep-7-512017-nfl-draft-grades

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need more details on the math, how are coming up with these numbers, don't have the ability to listen to soundcloud show. 


I pull Top 100 prospect lists from four different sources. Then I rank the players based on their highest ranking in any one of those scouting service lists. This year that returned 134 players. The players were given a value corresponding with their ranking 134 - 1.

Each of the picks in the first three rounds is assigned a value. 107 for #1, all the way to 1 for the last pick in the third round. All of the values of the picks available to each team at the beginning of the draft are added together.

Future acquired picks (in the first three rounds) are used to adjust the team's pick value as if the pick is the 17th pick of each round. For instance, if a team trades for a future #1, the corresponding value of the 17th pick is subtracted from that team's pick total. Conversely, if a team trades away a future pick, the value of that pick is added to their pick total.

Once the draft is finished, the value of all the players acquired is added together. This shows how much talent was added. Then that total is divided by the team's total pick value. This returns what I call a draft efficiency rating.

That's the score that you see.


Sent from my iPhone using Go-Bengals.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many ways I see this is a flawed way of analyzing the draft to create a score for each team, but good on you for doing the work since you have a podcast or online show or whatever it would be called exactly.

 

I think a good start would be to take the average prospect list position of each player instead of using the highest spot from one of your sources. If 3 sources have a guy at #50 and 1 source happens to put that guy at #10, I think it would make sense to use him as the #40 prospect (the average position on 4 hypothetical lists) rather than the #10. If I have it wrong, please let me know, but that's what I got out of your sentence "Then I rank the players based on their highest ranking in any one of those scouting service lists. " That seems very, very flawed IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many ways I see this is a flawed way of analyzing the draft to create a score for each team, but good on you for doing the work since you have a podcast or online show or whatever it would be called exactly.
 
I think a good start would be to take the average prospect list position of each player instead of using the highest spot from one of your sources. If 3 sources have a guy at #50 and 1 source happens to put that guy at #10, I think it would make sense to use him as the #40 prospect (the average position on 4 hypothetical lists) rather than the #10. If I have it wrong, please let me know, but that's what I got out of your sentence "Then I rank the players based on their highest ranking in any one of those scouting service lists. " That seems very, very flawed IMO.

Good point.

I used to average the rankings of the players. I stopped for exactly the opposite reason you stated. Too many times, there'd be a guy that was ranked, say, top 15 on three lists, but then would be 42 on the fourth.

Joe Mixon, this year is another example. If memory serves, he was ranked 61, 84, and not at all on the other two lists.

The best way to do it would be to tally a composite ranking that was weighted by the range of the rankings. Frankly that's just another layer of work I haven't invested the energy into.

Btw, it's a weekly radio show. We put each show up as podcast after the fact.



Sent from my iPhone using Go-Bengals.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...