Here’s my general outlook on conventional wisdom: It might be right… or it might not be. But I don’t have a lot of reverence for conventional wisdom. I just think there are too many examples of truths that we took for granted at one point, only to find out later that those truths weren’t actually… wait for it… true. Probably my favorite example of the idiocy of conventional wisdom is the fact that Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for supporting the heliocentric view of the solar system and questioning the earth-centric view.
It strikes me that the current debate surrounding the value of NFL draft picks is a classic debate over the value of conventional wisdom. The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective (HSAC) has advanced a theory of draft pick value (Harvard Chart) based on some analysis that disagrees with conventional wisdom. The Harvard Chart is often the subject of criticism from adherents of the traditional system for valuing draft picks (which I will call the Jimmy Johnson Chart).
If you want to read a compelling criticism of the Harvard Chart, check out @SigmundBloom on Bleacher Report. I posted a short response on Bloom’s article if you want to check that out. But this post is going to go in another direction, so it wasn’t really appropriate as a comment.
I actually don’t think you can have just one theory of valuation for draft picks. I think it depends on the team and what the team needs. Good teams and bad teams aren’t going to have the same types of needs in the draft. I’m always more interested in the shitty teams (the Patriots and the Packers don’t need any help) so let’s start there. Here’s my general theory of how shitty football teams should think about their rosters:
- Football teams start 22 men (not counting special teams)
- Football is a violent sport which often results in losing players for games or even full seasons.
- Shitty teams are almost never just one player away. If they were just one player away, they would be 8-8, not 2-14.
- Because of numbers 1 through 3, shitty teams should be looking to stockpile players. They don’t just need one or two players. They are often starting a number of players that couldn’t start on any other team.
Given those assumptions that I have about shitty teams and their draft needs, here is a chart that is based not on player value, but on how many “Games Started” you can expect to get from each pick in the draft.
But here’s something important. When you’re talking about “expect”, it becomes pretty important how you define “expect”. Should you define the expectation as being the average of games played for each draft spot? That might not work.
Consider for example 10 hypothetical picks from the 6th round. Let’s say that 9 of the 10 players never start an NFL game. But let’s say the other guy starts 120 games. The average games started for the group is 12. But 9 out of the 10 guys were well below the average. This is what you could call skewness. One outlier in the group is having an outsized impact on the average.
For that reason I used median games started as the measurement in the graph below. That creates a more accurate picture of what you can “expect” to get out of each pick. Half of the players picked in that slot will be better than the median and half will be worse.
If we’re talking about improving shitty teams, then what we really want is to pick a number of guys who can come in and contribute right away. We want NFL starters. That’s what the theory of draft value that I am proposing would give you.
Let’s compare this theory of draft value to the Jimmy Johnson Chart and the Harvard Chart.
My theory disagrees with the JJ Chart on the equivalent value of early picks and agrees with the JJ Chart on the worthlessness of the late picks.
My theory disagrees with the Harvard Chart on the value of late picks (HC says they’re worth something, I say they aren’t), but agrees more with the Harvard Chart on the value of the early picks.
I think my theory of value addresses a shortcoming in the Harvard Chart that @RumfordJohnny and I were discussing. NFL teams have a limited ability to even evaluate all of the talent they have in camp. Bringing in 20 guys from the 6th round isn’t that helpful when you have just a few weeks to get a look at them. My theory of value would place very little value in those guys.
There’s also another problem with the late round picks. They aren’t much better than undrafted free agents, which have no draft value. It just doesn’t make sense that you would assign value to a pick that might only be slightly better than a guy you could bring in off the street.
As to the Jimmy Johnson Chart, here’s a problem with it that its defenders would have a hard time explaining. According to the JJ Chart, the 7th and 8th picks added together don’t equal the value of the number one overall pick. If you’re a shitty team and you have a million holes to plug, wouldn’t you rather have two top 10 picks than just the one guy at the top of the draft? I would.
To get back to a point I made in the beginning of this post, this doesn’t have to be a one size fits all theory of drafting. After a team compiles enough starter-level players to dig themselves out of the cellar, then they can think about whether they might be one player away. But until then, they should keep in mind that they are playing a violent sport that starts 22 players.
One more thing to add about being “one player away”. Two of the greatest quarterbacks to ever put on a uniform, Peyton Manning and Dan Marino, have a combined one Super Bowl win. Football is a team sport. The Jimmy Johnson Chart ignores that reality.