Originally posted by AmpLee:
Posted in the 2010 regrade thread...
A more accurate grading system would account for quality and quantity. How about this:
'A' Player - A good to great player - 3 points
'B' Player - An average to good player - 2 points
'C' Player - A poor to average player - 1 point
'D' & 'F' - N/A
Now take the average amount of picks per team. 254 picks / 32 teams = 7.9 (we'll round up to 8) Now it's time to find an average score of these 8 picks. This theoretically would change from draft to draft and would take some time to figure out, but we can just guess for ease of use...
Pick 1 - 3
Pick 2 - 2
Pick 3 - 2
Pick 4 - 1
Pick 5 - 1
Pick 6 - 1
Pick 7 - 0
Pick 8 - 0
This seems like an average to solid draft to me; 1 high caliber player, 2 solid starters, and 3 backup types. So if this is the average to solid (and since I'm not giving point to D players I'll consider this 80% or a B-), let's give it a middle of the road "B-" grade with 10 points scored.
Now is the tricky part, what are our threshold between letter grades? Again, this is arbitrary right now and would take some statistical work to figure out if you wanted to get precise, but we can guestimate fairly well. Let's look at jreffs ratings from our draft from 2010 (which I think is graded fairly well)...
1. Anthony Davis-A (3)
1. Mike Iupati-A (3)
2. Taylor Mays-F(0)
3. Navorro Bowman-A (3)
6. Anthony Dixon-C+ (1)
6. Nate Byham-C- (1)
6. Kyle William-B (2)
7. Phillip Adam-C- (1)
That gives us a total of 14 points (4 over our average to solid of 10 points). So where does this leave us? Without finding out more examples of drafts we must consider what is widely accepted as a solid A draft and was is widely considered an F draft? I think this is pretty well defined as an A draft by most people on this board. Ninerjohn is definitely not a homer as well as many other posters in this thread give it an A. I would do the grading scale like this...
6 and below - D/F
7 - C-
8 - C
9 - C +
10 - B -
11 - B
12 - B+
13 - A-
14 - A
15 and Above - A+
This would be an A draft, which seems fair to me. I like this system of grading because it takes the complication out of other peoples' grading systems. It accounts for quality and quantity and does not add or take away points based on value of where someone was drafted. Because at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is cumulative impact. If one were to feel compelled we could also chart what the potential average score should have been based on picks. So a team that has two first round picks, should score six points in that round. If we look at the 2010 draft as a potential grade (I'll give sixth round picks half points because it's kind of no-mans land)...
Round 1: 3
Round 1: 3
Round 2: 2
Round 3: 1
Round 6: .5
Round 6: .5
Round 6: .5
Round 7: 0
So our 2010 draft had the average potential based on our points of selection of a 10.5 (B- to B) draft.
I did read that this morning. Interesting analysis. The difference is that I judge each pick on how good they are for that specific pick, and not how good of a player they are. For example, Kyle Williams isn't a great player, but he's a nice piece, and thus a very good 6th round pick. So in my system he might get full credit (which in your system maps to 3 pts), but at a pick that would not hold as much weight as an earlier pick.