Weighted draft grade formula

This is the system I'm working on for evaluating the draft in a precise way, by giving a grade to each pick and then calculating, through weights, the overall grade.

• Each pick in the draft has a value based on the Harvard draft value chart.
• Our maximum possible points is the total points of all the picks WE ENTERED THE DRAFT WITH prior to any trades (adds up to 1092)
• Each pick receives a grade from 100% to 0%. Letter grades are mapped to percentages (i.e. B+ is 88%, D is 65%, C- is 72%)
• We receive whatever points are available with the picks we made, multiplied by the percentage associated with the letter grade (e.g. getting an B+ for the 87th pick would be 106.2*.88=93.5 pts)
• Total received points (bullet pt. 4) are divided by the total possible points (bullet pt. 2). The percentage is mapped back to a grade (bullet pt. 3). Technically it's possible to have >100%. That's an A+
• Trading next year's picks counts against the total possible points
• Gaining a pick for next year counts for the total received points. I take the available points for that pick, and assign the average grade of all of this year's picks.
• To determine position in the round of next year's picks I take the midpoint between where the team picked this year, and the middle of the round (e.g. if we acquired KC's pick in the 4th, I would consider it the 8th pick of that round. For Baltimore, the 24th)
• If the pick next year is conditional then just flip a coin... it's rare for draft picks to be traded for conditional picks
• One more adjustment is needed. Since a late steal could at most produce the points available for that pick, steals are minimized. If, hypothetically, a team drafts the top player in the draft in the 7th round but their first round pick has a 7th rd. value (hypothetical) this system would give maximum points to the 7th rd. points (minimal weight) and would flunk the points available for the 1st round pick. The average would be a poor grade. This must be fixed. I thus allow shuffling of picks for maximize the points. I value Carradine higher than Reid, and will maximize points by swapping their draft spots.
• As an extension to the previous point, undrafted free agents can be swapped in for picks, to allow value for them.

So now the actual grades, and then swapped grades:

************************************************************** Starting Picks *****************************************************************
Owned Picks --- Possible Points
31-- 203
34-- 173.3
61 --132.7
74 --118.4
93 --101.1
128-- 76.2
131 --74.4
157 --60
173 --52.3
180 --49.1
237 --20
246 --16.8
252 --14.7
Total = 1092

**************************************************************Grading Scale*****************************************************************


Grade Value
100 = 100%
A+ = 98%
A = 95%
A- = 92%
B+ =88%
B =85%
B- = 82%
C+ = 78%
C = 75%
C- = 72%
D+ = 68%
D =65%
D- = 62%
F = 50%
0 =0%

**************************************************************Without Swaps*****************************************************************




Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18-------- 249.2-------- Reid---------------C --------0.8 ------------------------186.9
40 --------162.4 --------Carradine-------100 ------1.0 ------------------------162.4
55 --------140.2 --------McDonald ------B --------0.9 ------------------------119.17
88 --------105.3 --------Lemonier--------A --------1.0 ------------------------100.035
128 --------76.2 --------Patton -----------A+ ------1.0 ------------------------74.676
131 --------74.4 --------Lattimore -------A- -----0.9 ------------------------68.448
157 --------60.0 --------Dial ---------------C+ ------0.8 ------------------------46.8
180 --------49.1 --------Moody -----------B- ------0.8 ------------------------40.262
237 --------20 ---------Daniels ---------C- -----0.7 -----------------------14.4
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski -------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Cooper -----------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------12.936


2014 Pick --------------Possible ----------------Points Avg -----------------2013 Points
77 -------------------------115.4 ----------------------------0.9 ------------------------99.97836

Total B 940.78

**************************************************************With Swaps*****************************************************************


Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18 ---------249.2 -------Carradine -----A- ------------0.9 --------------------229.264
40 ---------162.4 -------Reid -------------B ------------------0.9 ---------------------138.04
55 ----------140.2 ------Patton ----------A ------------------1.0 ---------------------133.19
88 ----------105.3 ------Lemonier ------A ------------------1.0 ----------------------100.035
128 ---------76.2 -------McDonald -----A ------------------1.0 ----------------------72.39
131 ---------74.4 -------Lattimore ------A- ---------------0.9 ----------------------68.448
157 ---------60 ----------Dial --------------C+ ----------------0.8 ----------------------46.8
180 ---------49.1 -------Moody ----------B- --------------0.8 ----------------------40.262
237 ---------20 ----------Cooper---------C+ --------------0.7 ----------------------15.6
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski ------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Marquardt----------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------12.936

Total B+ 970.7


The final grade is a B+

**************************************************************Picks Explained*****************************************************************


(only explained the swapped picks)

18. Carradine - Great player, but some injury concerns. Also didn't start in college. 18 is a bit high considering he was unlikely to go before Denver's pick (A-)
40. Reid - Good value at 40. Still not a player I really liked, but at 40 good value. Won't be a pro-bowler, but will be solid enough to justify the spot (B)
55. Patton - Good value in the late 2nd. Really like the player. He could of earned a B in the late first. Big need in 2014. Extremely polished route runner, even with limited experience. That is a big deal to me (A)
88. Lemonier - Good value. Edge rusher that gives us a new way to rush the passer. Could be the 2nd best pass rusher on the team shortly. Has a lot of positives, and is a high energy player. Excellent value at a premium rotational position. Big time need (A)
128. McDonald - Great value in the late 4th. Very important piece of the puzzle. Has size, can run, and is said to know how to get open. Quality blocker (A)
131. Lattimore - If healthy, this is strong pick. But that's still a maybe. The team can afford to wait a year, and the value is very good. If healthy Lattimore can be exactly Frank Gore. I see a taller player that plays a very similar game to Frank a few years back. Will be an injury risk even if he recovers strongly...but then again all RBs are (A-)
157. Dial- I like the potential and size. I don't love the value. 1 round too early for me to say this was good value...i mean, this is the same round that Jesse Williams was picked in! Still I do like the player, and I think he's more talented than the last few big DTs that we acquired the last few years as undrafted FAs and developed decently well. (C+)
180. Moody - This is purely a special teams player. Its almost impossible for a fan to scout the special teams value of a player. Noone writes about it, no videos exist, and there aren't really stats. All I know is that Harbaugh said he's one of the top special teams players. This is a good thing. This part of the draft you get specialists. It's not likely that you'll find a starting receiver or 10+ sack DE in these rounds. This is for finding special teams players, punt returners, etc. Ultimately we needed a PR, since we signed several players for ST in the offseason, and still have Wilhoite for the same role. Decent pick (B-)
237. Cooper - Corner with size. It's a need, and he does have size. Unlikely to make the roster. Due to position, could make the PS (C+)
246. Bykowski - We need competition at the position. Like that he's a tackle and isn't drafted to play inside. We need a backup, and he'll compete with a list of others for that role (B+)
252. Luke Marquardt - mostly see above. Adds more competition (B+)

Input most welcome, especially on the methodology. We may disagree on the individual grades I assigned the players, but I'm interested to know if there are holes in the methodology. I know it doesn't cover a case like RGIII, where a team gives up a ton, but gets a franchise QB for the next decade and half. No price is too high for that. Those outlier cases cannot be handled by this formula.

look at what I just posted here...
http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/173002-grade-49ers-2010-draft-years-later/page8/

I think you have to grade a draft based on the draft.

By definition undrafted free agents are not part of the draft. Being able to swap them for a draft pick makes no sense.
If you are evaluating the whole off-season, you could include all players added the team regardless of how they were acquired.

But, if you are evaluating a draft, you should evaluate the players selected in that draft, and you should evaluate them in the order they were selected.

You are proposing moving picks around. You put Carradine in the first and drop Reid into the second with the expressed extent of maximizing his value.

If picks can be moved at will, shouldn't it be allowable to move a Taylor Mays pick into the 7th round to minimized the negative impact of a bust.

As I understand it, you are using the Harvard Chart as a base for establishing positional value.
I do not any particular value gained by using it, but that is your option. Not everyone who grades a draft will use, or be willing to use, the Harvard Chart.

At the end of day, it makes no real difference as their are no ISO standards for draft grades and draft grading.

Originally posted by buck:
I think you have to grade a draft based on the draft.

By definition undrafted free agents are not part of the draft. Being able to swap them for a draft pick makes no sense.
If you are evaluating the whole off-season, you could include all players added the team regardless of how they were acquired.

But, if you are evaluating a draft, you should evaluate the players selected in that draft, and you should evaluate them in the order they were selected.

You are proposing moving picks around. You put Carradine in the first and drop Reid into the second with the expressed extent of maximizing his value.

If picks can be moved at will, shouldn't it be allowable to move a Taylor Mays pick into the 7th round to minimized the negative impact of a bust.

As I understand it, you are using the Harvard Chart as a base for establishing positional value.
I do not any particular value gained by using it, but that is your option. Not everyone who grades a draft will use, or be willing to use, the Harvard Chart.

At the end of day, it makes no real difference as their are no ISO standards for draft grades and draft grading.

I'll try to respond to all your points

"By definition undrafted free agents are not part of the draft. Being able to swap them for a draft pick makes no sense. If you are evaluating the whole off-season, you could include all players added the team regardless of how they were acquired."

• Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Free Agent acquisitions. Just the undrafted free agents that have become a part of the draft process. These were players that would have been next in line to be selected, and maybe were even higher on a team's board but were not taken because the team thought they could still get them as a priority free agent. The impact this has on the draft grade is minimial. Mostly, you could swap out a 7th round pick or so. It has very very little impact on the actual grade.

"You are proposing moving picks around. You put Carradine in the first and drop Reid into the second with the expressed extent of maximizing his value.
If picks can be moved at will, shouldn't it be allowable to move a Taylor Mays pick into the 7th round to minimized the negative impact of a bust."

• Sometimes teams reach for a player, then get really good value for another player in another round. This is a way to balance that out. For example, if we were to re-grade NE's draft when they picked up Tom Brady in the 6th, and used their earliest pick for Adrian Klemm, they would receive a bad grade w/o swaps, because while Brady would get a perfect score for his draft position, it wouldn't have a ton of impact. A swap would be fair.
• In case of your example with Taylor Mays, sure, you could move Mays into the 7th round, but then you'd have to move the 7th rounder into the 2nd round, and I highly doubt, in the few days after the draft, you would evaluate Philip Adams higher as a 2nd round pick. But in a re-grade, you could say, "ok, Mays was a bust in the 2nd, but Bowman was a steal in the 3rd, and Kyle WIlliams is pretty good value in the 6th. In retrospect, if the draft went 1a) Bowman 1b) Iupati 2) Davis 3) Williams 4) Dixon 5) Adams 6) Byhnum 7) Mays then that draft would receive much better grades. You should be allowed to do that because you found value in the later rounds.

"As I understand it, you are using the Harvard Chart as a base for establishing positional value.
I do not any particular value gained by using it, but that is your option. Not everyone who grades a draft will use, or be willing to use, the Harvard Chart."

• I use this because for weighted picks, a base weight in necessary. I'm not sure of a better system, but if there is one, I could use that instead. The base doesn't change the methodology, but since it is a well thought out base weight, it makes more sense for me to use it, rather then try to recreate that part of the analysis.

Originally posted by jreff22:
look at what I just posted here...
http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/173002-grade-49ers-2010-draft-years-later/page8/

Interesting. But if I understood correctly, a team is going to be heavily penalized for having a bunch of later round picks. Here is what I mean:

If we have 5 picks in the top 5 rounds, and nail all of them, we would get an excellent score. Now to that add 3 picks in the 7th, and all of them turn out to be busts (no big deal, the vast majority of 7th rounders don't pan out), the score would drop significantly. This is why I'm trying to give unequal weights to each of the 254 picks

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

Originally posted by jreff22:
look at what I just posted here...
http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/173002-grade-49ers-2010-draft-years-later/page8/

Interesting. But if I understood correctly, a team is going to be heavily penalized for having a bunch of later round picks. Here is what I mean:

If we have 5 picks in the top 5 rounds, and nail all of them, we would get an excellent score. Now to that add 3 picks in the 7th, and all of them turn out to be busts (no big deal, the vast majority of 7th rounders don't pan out), the score would drop significantly. This is why I'm trying to give unequal weights to each of the 254 picks

I tend to give those kids a C- avg...Mays on the other had got an F because the pick and value in the 2nd was so f**king horrible

B or B+ sounds about right. I like the weighted system to each pick. The subjectivity is in the Grade/Value. I don't fully understand how you determine the grades though. Like how do you grade/value Carradine who is coming off an ACL injury, who, right now is a tweener (OLB/DE) in our 3-4 and at most will only get 50% of the snaps. In addition he could even end up on the PUP. This, opposed to Reid who is going to be an every down FS with the potential to play SS, no injuries and is going to take 100% of the snaps on defense and was our #1 ranked S overall? How do you factor in "luxury" picks, or injured players and "projects?" Anyhow, I like how you systematically weighted these picks and really, to me, this sounds about right. Have you applied this to previous drafts; going back to where you had originally graded each player and assigned this weighted system to verify validity?

Pick --- Possible --- Player -------- Grade - Value(%) --------- Points Received
18 -------- 249.2 ------ Reid--------------- C ------ 0.8 ----------------------- 186.9
40 -------- 162.4 ------ Carradine------- A --------1.0 ----------------------- 162.4
55 -------- 140.2 ------ McDonald ------ B ------- 0.9 ----------------------- 119.17
88 -------- 105.3 ------ Lemonier-------- A ------- 1.0 ----------------------- 100.035
128 ------- 76.2 ------- Patton ----------- A+ ----- 1.0 ------------------------ 74.676
131 ------- 74.4 ------- Lattimore ------- A ------- 0.9 ------------------------ 68.448
157 -------- 60.0 ------- Dial -------------- C+ ----- 0.8 ------------------------ 46.8
180 -------- 49.1 ------- Moody ---------- B ------- 0.8 ----------------------- 40.262
237 -------- 20 ---------- Daniels -------- C ------- 0.7 ------------------------ 14.4
246 -------- 16.8 ------ Bykowski ------- B+ ----- 0.9 ------------------------ 14.784
252 -------- 14.7 ------ Cooper ---------- B+ ----- 0.9 -------------------------12.936

If you're going to grade each pick, I like that you're giving unequal weighting....seems to make the most sense. I also think that since trading picks for players adds value to the team (and perhaps even more so especially when you're trading late round picks for those veterans), those should be factored in as well. You're essentially getting value for picks that generally have little-to-none, especially for a roster as loaded as ours.

Specifically, we should factor in trading for Colt McCoy (likely #2 QB) with the pick we got in exchange for Taylor Mays, and for picking up Boldin (likely #2 WR) with a late round 6th.

Originally posted by NCommand:
B or B+ sounds about right. I like the weighted system to each pick. The subjectivity is in the Grade/Value. I don't fully understand how you determine the grades though. Like how do you grade/value Carradine who is coming off an ACL injury, who, right now is a tweener (OLB/DE) in our 3-4 and at most will only get 50% of the snaps. In addition he could even end up on the PUP. This, opposed to Reid who is going to be an every down FS with the potential to play SS, no injuries and is going to take 100% of the snaps on defense and was our #1 ranked S overall? How do you factor in "luxury" picks, or injured players and "projects?" Anyhow, I like how you systematically weighted these picks and really, to me, this sounds about right. Have you applied this to previous drafts; going back to where you had originally graded each player and assigned this weighted system to verify validity?

Pick --- Possible --- Player -------- Grade - Value(%) --------- Points Received
18 -------- 249.2 ------ Reid--------------- C ------ 0.8 ----------------------- 186.9
40 -------- 162.4 ------ Carradine------- A --------1.0 ----------------------- 162.4
55 -------- 140.2 ------ McDonald ------ B ------- 0.9 ----------------------- 119.17
88 -------- 105.3 ------ Lemonier-------- A ------- 1.0 ----------------------- 100.035
128 ------- 76.2 ------- Patton ----------- A+ ----- 1.0 ------------------------ 74.676
131 ------- 74.4 ------- Lattimore ------- A ------- 0.9 ------------------------ 68.448
157 -------- 60.0 ------- Dial -------------- C+ ----- 0.8 ------------------------ 46.8
180 -------- 49.1 ------- Moody ---------- B ------- 0.8 ----------------------- 40.262
237 -------- 20 ---------- Daniels -------- C ------- 0.7 ------------------------ 14.4
246 -------- 16.8 ------ Bykowski ------- B+ ----- 0.9 ------------------------ 14.784
252 -------- 14.7 ------ Cooper ---------- B+ ----- 0.9 -------------------------12.936

NC - I don't want to derail this thread, but I noticed a few times you mentioned that Tank is a tweener OLB/DE. Not sure Baalke agrees with you on that though:

"He's going to play down," Baalke said. "He's not an outside linebacker. In our system - it's one of the things we really like is his versatility. He's a little bit bigger than Ray was when Ray came out.

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
This is the system I'm working on for evaluating the draft in a precise way, by giving a grade to each pick and then calculating, through weights, the overall grade.

• Each pick in the draft has a value based on the Harvard draft value chart.
• Our maximum possible points is the total points of all the picks WE ENTERED THE DRAFT WITH prior to any trades (adds up to 1092)
• Each pick receives a grade from 100% to 0%. Letter grades are mapped to percentages (i.e. B+ is 88%, D is 65%, C- is 72%)
• We receive whatever points are available with the picks we made, multiplied by the percentage associated with the letter grade (e.g. getting an B+ for the 87th pick would be 106.2*.88=93.5 pts)
• Total received points (bullet pt. 4) are divided by the total possible points (bullet pt. 2). The percentage is mapped back to a grade (bullet pt. 3). Technically it's possible to have >100%. That's an A+
• Trading next year's picks counts against the total possible points
• Gaining a pick for next year counts for the total received points. I take the available points for that pick, and assign the average grade of all of this year's picks.
• To determine position in the round of next year's picks I take the midpoint between where the team picked this year, and the middle of the round (e.g. if we acquired KC's pick in the 4th, I would consider it the 8th pick of that round. For Baltimore, the 24th)
• If the pick next year is conditional then just flip a coin... it's rare for draft picks to be traded for conditional picks
• One more adjustment is needed. Since a late steal could at most produce the points available for that pick, steals are minimized. If, hypothetically, a team drafts the top player in the draft in the 7th round but their first round pick has a 7th rd. value (hypothetical) this system would give maximum points to the 7th rd. points (minimal weight) and would flunk the points available for the 1st round pick. The average would be a poor grade. This must be fixed. I thus allow shuffling of picks for maximize the points. I value Carradine higher than Reid, and will maximize points by swapping their draft spots.
• As an extension to the previous point, undrafted free agents can be swapped in for picks, to allow value for them.

So now the actual grades, and then swapped grades:

************************************************************** Starting Picks *****************************************************************
Owned Picks --- Possible Points
31-- 203
34-- 173.3
61 --132.7
74 --118.4
93 --101.1
128-- 76.2
131 --74.4
157 --60
173 --52.3
180 --49.1
237 --20
246 --16.8
252 --14.7
Total = 1092

**************************************************************Grading Scale*****************************************************************


Grade Value
100 = 100%
A+ = 98%
A = 95%
A- = 92%
B+ =88%
B =85%
B- = 82%
C+ = 78%
C = 75%
C- = 72%
D+ = 68%
D =65%
D- = 62%
F = 50%
0 =0%

**************************************************************Without Swaps*****************************************************************




Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18-------- 249.2-------- Reid---------------C --------0.8 ------------------------186.9
40 --------162.4 --------Carradine-------100 ------1.0 ------------------------162.4
55 --------140.2 --------McDonald ------B --------0.9 ------------------------119.17
88 --------105.3 --------Lemonier--------A --------1.0 ------------------------100.035
128 --------76.2 --------Patton -----------A+ ------1.0 ------------------------74.676
131 --------74.4 --------Lattimore -------A- -----0.9 ------------------------68.448
157 --------60.0 --------Dial ---------------C+ ------0.8 ------------------------46.8
180 --------49.1 --------Moody -----------B- ------0.8 ------------------------40.262
237 --------20 ---------Daniels ---------C- -----0.7 -----------------------14.4
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski -------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Cooper -----------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------12.936


2014 Pick --------------Possible ----------------Points Avg -----------------2013 Points
77 -------------------------115.4 ----------------------------0.9 ------------------------99.97836

Total B 940.78

**************************************************************With Swaps*****************************************************************


Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18 ---------249.2 -------Carradine -----A- ------------0.9 --------------------229.264
40 ---------162.4 -------Reid -------------B ------------------0.9 ---------------------138.04
55 ----------140.2 ------Patton ----------A ------------------1.0 ---------------------133.19
88 ----------105.3 ------Lemonier ------A ------------------1.0 ----------------------100.035
128 ---------76.2 -------McDonald -----A ------------------1.0 ----------------------72.39
131 ---------74.4 -------Lattimore ------A- ---------------0.9 ----------------------68.448
157 ---------60 ----------Dial --------------C+ ----------------0.8 ----------------------46.8
180 ---------49.1 -------Moody ----------B- --------------0.8 ----------------------40.262
237 ---------20 ----------Cooper---------C+ --------------0.7 ----------------------15.6
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski ------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Marquardt----------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------12.936

Total B+ 970.7


The final grade is a B+

**************************************************************Picks Explained*****************************************************************


(only explained the swapped picks)

18. Carradine - Great player, but some injury concerns. Also didn't start in college. 18 is a bit high considering he was unlikely to go before Denver's pick (A-)
40. Reid - Good value at 40. Still not a player I really liked, but at 40 good value. Won't be a pro-bowler, but will be solid enough to justify the spot (B)
55. Patton - Good value in the late 2nd. Really like the player. He could of earned a B in the late first. Big need in 2014. Extremely polished route runner, even with limited experience. That is a big deal to me (A)
88. Lemonier - Good value. Edge rusher that gives us a new way to rush the passer. Could be the 2nd best pass rusher on the team shortly. Has a lot of positives, and is a high energy player. Excellent value at a premium rotational position. Big time need (A)
128. McDonald - Great value in the late 4th. Very important piece of the puzzle. Has size, can run, and is said to know how to get open. Quality blocker (A)
131. Lattimore - If healthy, this is strong pick. But that's still a maybe. The team can afford to wait a year, and the value is very good. If healthy Lattimore can be exactly Frank Gore. I see a taller player that plays a very similar game to Frank a few years back. Will be an injury risk even if he recovers strongly...but then again all RBs are (A-)
157. Dial- I like the potential and size. I don't love the value. 1 round too early for me to say this was good value...i mean, this is the same round that Jesse Williams was picked in! Still I do like the player, and I think he's more talented than the last few big DTs that we acquired the last few years as undrafted FAs and developed decently well. (C+)
180. Moody - This is purely a special teams player. Its almost impossible for a fan to scout the special teams value of a player. Noone writes about it, no videos exist, and there aren't really stats. All I know is that Harbaugh said he's one of the top special teams players. This is a good thing. This part of the draft you get specialists. It's not likely that you'll find a starting receiver or 10+ sack DE in these rounds. This is for finding special teams players, punt returners, etc. Ultimately we needed a PR, since we signed several players for ST in the offseason, and still have Wilhoite for the same role. Decent pick (B-)
237. Cooper - Corner with size. It's a need, and he does have size. Unlikely to make the roster. Due to position, could make the PS (C+)
246. Bykowski - We need competition at the position. Like that he's a tackle and isn't drafted to play inside. We need a backup, and he'll compete with a list of others for that role (B+)
252. Luke Marquardt - mostly see above. Adds more competition (B+)

Input most welcome, especially on the methodology. We may disagree on the individual grades I assigned the players, but I'm interested to know if there are holes in the methodology. I know it doesn't cover a case like RGIII, where a team gives up a ton, but gets a franchise QB for the next decade and half. No price is too high for that. Those outlier cases cannot be handled by this formula.

Have you considered acquiring a girlfriend, or going for walks out in the fresh air, or perhaps woodworking?

Originally posted by NCommand:
B or B+ sounds about right. I like the weighted system to each pick. The subjectivity is in the Grade/Value. I don't fully understand how you determine the grades though. Like how do you grade/value Carradine who is coming off an ACL injury, who, right now is a tweener (OLB/DE) in our 3-4 and at most will only get 50% of the snaps. In addition he could even end up on the PUP. This, opposed to Reid who is going to be an every down FS with the potential to play SS, no injuries and is going to take 100% of the snaps on defense and was our #1 ranked S overall? How do you factor in "luxury" picks, or injured players and "projects?" Anyhow, I like how you systematically weighted these picks and really, to me, this sounds about right. Have you applied this to previous drafts; going back to where you had originally graded each player and assigned this weighted system to verify validity?

Pick --- Possible --- Player -------- Grade - Value(%) --------- Points Received
18 -------- 249.2 ------ Reid--------------- C ------ 0.8 ----------------------- 186.9
40 -------- 162.4 ------ Carradine------- A --------1.0 ----------------------- 162.4
55 -------- 140.2 ------ McDonald ------ B ------- 0.9 ----------------------- 119.17
88 -------- 105.3 ------ Lemonier-------- A ------- 1.0 ----------------------- 100.035
128 ------- 76.2 ------- Patton ----------- A+ ----- 1.0 ------------------------ 74.676
131 ------- 74.4 ------- Lattimore ------- A ------- 0.9 ------------------------ 68.448
157 -------- 60.0 ------- Dial -------------- C+ ----- 0.8 ------------------------ 46.8
180 -------- 49.1 ------- Moody ---------- B ------- 0.8 ----------------------- 40.262
237 -------- 20 ---------- Daniels -------- C ------- 0.7 ------------------------ 14.4
246 -------- 16.8 ------ Bykowski ------- B+ ----- 0.9 ------------------------ 14.784
252 -------- 14.7 ------ Cooper ---------- B+ ----- 0.9 -------------------------12.936

You're right. The grades are subjective. I was more concerned with putting a structure together for weighing the total draft based on the success of each component (picked player or acquired pick). While there could be a systematic way to grade each player, that's a whole different task. Would be interesting to incorporate that in though, at some point.

I haven't applied this to past drafts, but would like to. Grading this weekends game is mostly for fun, and is really just to get rid of some post-draft excitement. Grading old drafts actually holds value, as we know how these players performed. A few additional changes would be needed in that case (what if a player is cut by the coaching staff, then has tremendous success with another team? Bad pick? Or great pick and terrible roster mgmt by the coaching staff?). I would like to do that eventually. I think this structure allows for that.

Thanks for your feedback!

Originally posted by fandemonium:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
This is the system I'm working on for evaluating the draft in a precise way, by giving a grade to each pick and then calculating, through weights, the overall grade.

• Each pick in the draft has a value based on the Harvard draft value chart.
• Our maximum possible points is the total points of all the picks WE ENTERED THE DRAFT WITH prior to any trades (adds up to 1092)
• Each pick receives a grade from 100% to 0%. Letter grades are mapped to percentages (i.e. B+ is 88%, D is 65%, C- is 72%)
• We receive whatever points are available with the picks we made, multiplied by the percentage associated with the letter grade (e.g. getting an B+ for the 87th pick would be 106.2*.88=93.5 pts)
• Total received points (bullet pt. 4) are divided by the total possible points (bullet pt. 2). The percentage is mapped back to a grade (bullet pt. 3). Technically it's possible to have >100%. That's an A+
• Trading next year's picks counts against the total possible points
• Gaining a pick for next year counts for the total received points. I take the available points for that pick, and assign the average grade of all of this year's picks.
• To determine position in the round of next year's picks I take the midpoint between where the team picked this year, and the middle of the round (e.g. if we acquired KC's pick in the 4th, I would consider it the 8th pick of that round. For Baltimore, the 24th)
• If the pick next year is conditional then just flip a coin... it's rare for draft picks to be traded for conditional picks
• One more adjustment is needed. Since a late steal could at most produce the points available for that pick, steals are minimized. If, hypothetically, a team drafts the top player in the draft in the 7th round but their first round pick has a 7th rd. value (hypothetical) this system would give maximum points to the 7th rd. points (minimal weight) and would flunk the points available for the 1st round pick. The average would be a poor grade. This must be fixed. I thus allow shuffling of picks for maximize the points. I value Carradine higher than Reid, and will maximize points by swapping their draft spots.
• As an extension to the previous point, undrafted free agents can be swapped in for picks, to allow value for them.

So now the actual grades, and then swapped grades:

************************************************************** Starting Picks *****************************************************************
Owned Picks --- Possible Points
31-- 203
34-- 173.3
61 --132.7
74 --118.4
93 --101.1
128-- 76.2
131 --74.4
157 --60
173 --52.3
180 --49.1
237 --20
246 --16.8
252 --14.7
Total = 1092

**************************************************************Grading Scale*****************************************************************


Grade Value
100 = 100%
A+ = 98%
A = 95%
A- = 92%
B+ =88%
B =85%
B- = 82%
C+ = 78%
C = 75%
C- = 72%
D+ = 68%
D =65%
D- = 62%
F = 50%
0 =0%

**************************************************************Without Swaps*****************************************************************




Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18-------- 249.2-------- Reid---------------C --------0.8 ------------------------186.9
40 --------162.4 --------Carradine-------100 ------1.0 ------------------------162.4
55 --------140.2 --------McDonald ------B --------0.9 ------------------------119.17
88 --------105.3 --------Lemonier--------A --------1.0 ------------------------100.035
128 --------76.2 --------Patton -----------A+ ------1.0 ------------------------74.676
131 --------74.4 --------Lattimore -------A- -----0.9 ------------------------68.448
157 --------60.0 --------Dial ---------------C+ ------0.8 ------------------------46.8
180 --------49.1 --------Moody -----------B- ------0.8 ------------------------40.262
237 --------20 ---------Daniels ---------C- -----0.7 -----------------------14.4
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski -------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Cooper -----------B+ ------0.9 -------------------------12.936


2014 Pick --------------Possible ----------------Points Avg -----------------2013 Points
77 -------------------------115.4 ----------------------------0.9 ------------------------99.97836

Total B 940.78

**************************************************************With Swaps*****************************************************************


Pick ----Possible ---Player -------Grade -------Value(%) --------Received Points
18 ---------249.2 -------Carradine -----A- ------------0.9 --------------------229.264
40 ---------162.4 -------Reid -------------B ------------------0.9 ---------------------138.04
55 ----------140.2 ------Patton ----------A ------------------1.0 ---------------------133.19
88 ----------105.3 ------Lemonier ------A ------------------1.0 ----------------------100.035
128 ---------76.2 -------McDonald -----A ------------------1.0 ----------------------72.39
131 ---------74.4 -------Lattimore ------A- ---------------0.9 ----------------------68.448
157 ---------60 ----------Dial --------------C+ ----------------0.8 ----------------------46.8
180 ---------49.1 -------Moody ----------B- --------------0.8 ----------------------40.262
237 ---------20 ----------Cooper---------C+ --------------0.7 ----------------------15.6
246 ---------16.8 -------Bykowski ------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------14.784
252 ---------14.7 -------Marquardt----------B+ ----------------0.9 ----------------------12.936

Total B+ 970.7


The final grade is a B+

**************************************************************Picks Explained*****************************************************************


(only explained the swapped picks)

18. Carradine - Great player, but some injury concerns. Also didn't start in college. 18 is a bit high considering he was unlikely to go before Denver's pick (A-)
40. Reid - Good value at 40. Still not a player I really liked, but at 40 good value. Won't be a pro-bowler, but will be solid enough to justify the spot (B)
55. Patton - Good value in the late 2nd. Really like the player. He could of earned a B in the late first. Big need in 2014. Extremely polished route runner, even with limited experience. That is a big deal to me (A)
88. Lemonier - Good value. Edge rusher that gives us a new way to rush the passer. Could be the 2nd best pass rusher on the team shortly. Has a lot of positives, and is a high energy player. Excellent value at a premium rotational position. Big time need (A)
128. McDonald - Great value in the late 4th. Very important piece of the puzzle. Has size, can run, and is said to know how to get open. Quality blocker (A)
131. Lattimore - If healthy, this is strong pick. But that's still a maybe. The team can afford to wait a year, and the value is very good. If healthy Lattimore can be exactly Frank Gore. I see a taller player that plays a very similar game to Frank a few years back. Will be an injury risk even if he recovers strongly...but then again all RBs are (A-)
157. Dial- I like the potential and size. I don't love the value. 1 round too early for me to say this was good value...i mean, this is the same round that Jesse Williams was picked in! Still I do like the player, and I think he's more talented than the last few big DTs that we acquired the last few years as undrafted FAs and developed decently well. (C+)
180. Moody - This is purely a special teams player. Its almost impossible for a fan to scout the special teams value of a player. Noone writes about it, no videos exist, and there aren't really stats. All I know is that Harbaugh said he's one of the top special teams players. This is a good thing. This part of the draft you get specialists. It's not likely that you'll find a starting receiver or 10+ sack DE in these rounds. This is for finding special teams players, punt returners, etc. Ultimately we needed a PR, since we signed several players for ST in the offseason, and still have Wilhoite for the same role. Decent pick (B-)
237. Cooper - Corner with size. It's a need, and he does have size. Unlikely to make the roster. Due to position, could make the PS (C+)
246. Bykowski - We need competition at the position. Like that he's a tackle and isn't drafted to play inside. We need a backup, and he'll compete with a list of others for that role (B+)
252. Luke Marquardt - mostly see above. Adds more competition (B+)

Input most welcome, especially on the methodology. We may disagree on the individual grades I assigned the players, but I'm interested to know if there are holes in the methodology. I know it doesn't cover a case like RGIII, where a team gives up a ton, but gets a franchise QB for the next decade and half. No price is too high for that. Those outlier cases cannot be handled by this formula.

Have you considered acquiring a girlfriend, or going for walks out in the fresh air, or perhaps woodworking?

I prefer #s

What kind of calculus is this??? My head hurts.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
If you're going to grade each pick, I like that you're giving unequal weighting....seems to make the most sense. I also think that since trading picks for players adds value to the team (and perhaps even more so especially when you're trading late round picks for those veterans), those should be factored in as well. You're essentially getting value for picks that generally have little-to-none, especially for a roster as loaded as ours.

Specifically, we should factor in trading for Colt McCoy (likely #2 QB) with the pick we got in exchange for Taylor Mays, and for picking up Boldin (likely #2 WR) with a late round 6th.

Here's the issue. Lets take Harvin. If you consider getting a player like Harvin at #26 overall (I believe that's where Seattle picked), he'd be an A+. But he's older, and has a MASSIVE salary. You can't compare him to a player making $1.5MM/yr when he'll be making close to 6 times as much. Not in a salary cap league. To lesser extent this applies to all veteran acquisitions. With Boldin, the issue is that he'll be here for 1 year. So the consideration is the probability that a 6th round pick pans out is low, but if he does pan out (it happens), even in a low impact role, he could be around for years. How do you value Boldin for 1 year at $6MM vs. Kyle Williams for 5 years at <$1MM? KW isn't the offensive weapon that Boldin is but he returns punts (when he doesn't drop them) and has potential to develop into a quality #4/5 and slot player. It gets tricky, but you do have a very valid point. Its an important future iteration.

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
If you're going to grade each pick, I like that you're giving unequal weighting....seems to make the most sense. I also think that since trading picks for players adds value to the team (and perhaps even more so especially when you're trading late round picks for those veterans), those should be factored in as well. You're essentially getting value for picks that generally have little-to-none, especially for a roster as loaded as ours.

Specifically, we should factor in trading for Colt McCoy (likely #2 QB) with the pick we got in exchange for Taylor Mays, and for picking up Boldin (likely #2 WR) with a late round 6th.

Here's the issue. Lets take Harvin. If you consider getting a player like Harvin at #26 overall (I believe that's where Seattle picked), he'd be an A+. But he's older, and has a MASSIVE salary. You can't compare him to a player making $1.5MM/yr when he'll be making close to 6 times as much. Not in a salary cap league. To lesser extent this applies to all veteran acquisitions. With Boldin, the issue is that he'll be here for 1 year. So the consideration is the probability that a 6th round pick pans out is low, but if he does pan out (it happens), even in a low impact role, he could be around for years. How do you value Boldin for 1 year at $6MM vs. Kyle Williams for 5 years at <$1MM? KW isn't the offensive weapon that Boldin is but he returns punts (when he doesn't drop them) and has potential to develop into a quality #4/5 and slot player. It gets tricky, but you do have a very valid point. Its an important future iteration.

Time is the key factor, which is why grading drafts right after they've happened is kinda goofy at best.

But in 2016 for example, we'll be able to place more objective values on the picks we made and the veterans we traded picks for based on actual results (individual and team). Don't get me wrong, placing grades on current/recent draft classes is fun, but it's also incredibly subjective.