Weighted draft grade formula

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

• I tried staying away from player acquisitions because then you get into questions of how long they have left in their career and salaries that are WAY higher than a 6th rounder (in Boldin's example). Player acquisitions for draft picks aren't very common so you could assign a value to the player based on his projected role and level of play (and need) for that draft choice. For instance, Boldin could be considered a 2nd or 3rd round value but we get this production at a 6th round pick. McCoy at 3rd for a 7th given the QB's in this years draft (poor) and factor in he could be our 2nd QB off the bench.
• I approached this as: "on draft day you start with X, how did you do with it." Teams that have more picks are expected to do more and have more opportunities. Teams that are drafting higher are expected to get more value from their early picks and are graded harder based on the weights assigned to their picks. I like this approach...sounds like you are on the right track of developing a weighting system and quantifying it. Now you can build on it with the additional factors we both noted (scenarios, need, number of picks, player acquisitions for draft picks, etc.).
• Trades and trade value has been considered. Price paid for picks and pick received have been factored in. If a pick was traded on draft day for a player, my model is f**ked. LOL. True...
• Taking team needs, etc. into the equation is done when handing out grades. I graded Reid a bit better for us than for a team like Jax for example because we really need someone that can step in and play now. Reid, coming from the SEC and having plenty of experience, can do that. We are competing for a SB now. I'd rather have a good pretty good player today, even if he will never be a pro-bowler, than a guy with tons of potential that needs time to develop, at the safety position. For all other positions I feel the exact opposite. I think this will be the hardest to quantify and operationally define...like what is an OD for a successful draft-process?
• Grades assigned to players is not scientific. It's my best judgement. Only the system of weighing players, picks, trades, etc. is systematic. Gotcha and I truly appreciate the efforts. I think you're well on your way and you can build the rest later...and then stack up other teams and see how we did...even go back and do past drafts and see how we stacked up back then as well. Good times. Great work!

By the time this is all done, you're going to be hired by Baalke himself for developing a GM draft-process scenario program. If X, choose Y.

See bolded above for comments.

My biggest problem with current players is how different they are from drafted players. Take 2 current scenarios

1. Boldin. While he's clearly an amazing player for a 6th round pick, and getting a Boldin in the 6th round would be an A++++, he's only going to be on the team for 1 year. At most 2. An A+ 6th rd. pick would be on the team for at least 4 or 5, and likely many more than that. How does Boldin compare to Kyle Williams? He's WAY better...but Williams has been a contributor for several years and could be a big contributor again this year and several years into the future.
2. Harvin. Harvin is a great first rd. pick for Seattle. But his salary is 8X that of a player that would be drafted in that spot. How good is Harvin versus another player at 26 and an $8MM/yr FA? That would be the fair comparison. Would you rather have Harvin, or Cordarelle Patterson AND sign Jake Long? Harvin is a proven commodity, but still!

Because of age and money this becomes a tricky proposition.

I see this analysis having 3 separate parts. (1) valuing the picks. The Harvard draft chart already did that. (2) the weights structure that I describe here. (3) a scientific and operational way to value the selections. This is wide open . I'd love to eventually develop this further, automate it, and run it for past drafts of various teams. See patterns and the such.

Thanks for the kind words and all the great feedback!

Too much math dude. All I got from this was 1 + 1 = A

Therefore,

Overall grade = A

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

• I don't include trades for players due to complexity. Mostly contracts and length of remaining playing career. More thought is needed to include them
• Supplemental players should be included
• Lost picks due to policy should not. Mostly I'm trying to evaluate how the GM performed on draft day. I don't want to penalize him because a defensive coach broke rules
• Evaluating the "draft" or the "draft process" is a matter of preference. I guess here I'm choosing to evaluate the process.
• Swapping in undrafted free agents right after the draft cannot work to do anything other than replace a 7th round pick or so. Its practically impossible, like you said, without any knowledge of that player, to think he's worthy of a 2nd round pick. However, Da'Rick would be really good value in the 6th or 7th, and since the team got him as an UFA, I would give them the benefit of replacing a 6th or 7th round pick. Its also very rare that a guy is projected in the 3rd (Da'Rick) and goes undrafted.

You bring up a fair point that these players were not drafted, but here I chose to judge the GMs' weekend acquisitions.

Well, it is your system, so at the end of the day, I accept your preferences as valid.

Good discussion.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

• I don't include trades for players due to complexity. Mostly contracts and length of remaining playing career. More thought is needed to include them
• Supplemental players should be included
• Lost picks due to policy should not. Mostly I'm trying to evaluate how the GM performed on draft day. I don't want to penalize him because a defensive coach broke rules
• Evaluating the "draft" or the "draft process" is a matter of preference. I guess here I'm choosing to evaluate the process.
• Swapping in undrafted free agents right after the draft cannot work to do anything other than replace a 7th round pick or so. Its practically impossible, like you said, without any knowledge of that player, to think he's worthy of a 2nd round pick. However, Da'Rick would be really good value in the 6th or 7th, and since the team got him as an UFA, I would give them the benefit of replacing a 6th or 7th round pick. Its also very rare that a guy is projected in the 3rd (Da'Rick) and goes undrafted.

You bring up a fair point that these players were not drafted, but here I chose to judge the GMs' weekend acquisitions.

Well, it is your system, so at the end of the day, I accept your preferences as valid.

Good discussion.

Thanks for the input

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

• I tried staying away from player acquisitions because then you get into questions of how long they have left in their career and salaries that are WAY higher than a 6th rounder (in Boldin's example). Player acquisitions for draft picks aren't very common so you could assign a value to the player based on his projected role and level of play (and need) for that draft choice. For instance, Boldin could be considered a 2nd or 3rd round value but we get this production at a 6th round pick. McCoy at 3rd for a 7th given the QB's in this years draft (poor) and factor in he could be our 2nd QB off the bench.
• I approached this as: "on draft day you start with X, how did you do with it." Teams that have more picks are expected to do more and have more opportunities. Teams that are drafting higher are expected to get more value from their early picks and are graded harder based on the weights assigned to their picks. I like this approach...sounds like you are on the right track of developing a weighting system and quantifying it. Now you can build on it with the additional factors we both noted (scenarios, need, number of picks, player acquisitions for draft picks, etc.).
• Trades and trade value has been considered. Price paid for picks and pick received have been factored in. If a pick was traded on draft day for a player, my model is f**ked. LOL. True...
• Taking team needs, etc. into the equation is done when handing out grades. I graded Reid a bit better for us than for a team like Jax for example because we really need someone that can step in and play now. Reid, coming from the SEC and having plenty of experience, can do that. We are competing for a SB now. I'd rather have a good pretty good player today, even if he will never be a pro-bowler, than a guy with tons of potential that needs time to develop, at the safety position. For all other positions I feel the exact opposite. I think this will be the hardest to quantify and operationally define...like what is an OD for a successful draft-process?
• Grades assigned to players is not scientific. It's my best judgement. Only the system of weighing players, picks, trades, etc. is systematic. Gotcha and I truly appreciate the efforts. I think you're well on your way and you can build the rest later...and then stack up other teams and see how we did...even go back and do past drafts and see how we stacked up back then as well. Good times. Great work!

By the time this is all done, you're going to be hired by Baalke himself for developing a GM draft-process scenario program. If X, choose Y.

See bolded above for comments.

My biggest problem with current players is how different they are from drafted players. Take 2 current scenarios

1. Boldin. While he's clearly an amazing player for a 6th round pick, and getting a Boldin in the 6th round would be an A++++, he's only going to be on the team for 1 year. At most 2. An A+ 6th rd. pick would be on the team for at least 4 or 5, and likely many more than that. How does Boldin compare to Kyle Williams? He's WAY better...but Williams has been a contributor for several years and could be a big contributor again this year and several years into the future.
2. Harvin. Harvin is a great first rd. pick for Seattle. But his salary is 8X that of a player that would be drafted in that spot. How good is Harvin versus another player at 26 and an $8MM/yr FA? That would be the fair comparison. Would you rather have Harvin, or Cordarelle Patterson AND sign Jake Long? Harvin is a proven commodity, but still!

Because of age and money this becomes a tricky proposition.

I see this analysis having 3 separate parts. (1) valuing the picks. The Harvard draft chart already did that. (2) the weights structure that I describe here. (3) a scientific and operational way to value the selections. This is wide open . I'd love to eventually develop this further, automate it, and run it for past drafts of various teams. See patterns and the such.

Thanks for the kind words and all the great feedback!

Sounds like a blast and it will be fun to watch you tweak it over time.

As to the Boldin/Harvin acquisitions, I'd ignore everything (contracts, etc.) and just pretend they are in the 2013 draft with everyone else...you just have a little bit more tape on them then say a Jr. draftee. So, if Boldin was drafted today, what value would you place him at? A 2nd or 3rd but we got him as a 6th? McCoy, Harvin, etc.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:

Originally posted by jreff22:
was thinking of adding a bonus to players that make the probowl based on their round selected. But going highest value from bottom to top because hitting a 7th rounder that is a probowl talent is harder than a 1st or 2nd for instance.....

In retrospect. The day after the draft that's impossible . Shuffling could also help take care of that.

it would obviously have to be a few years down the line...but it can add value to a total score through a "gem" boost for instance.

If the grading scale permits the use of A + (4.3 points) that would compensate some for a pick like Bowman.
Combing the use of A + and shuffling picks would help give a better sense of the overall grade of the draft class.

And yes, this can only be done after a few years.

If an A is equal to excellent (not perfection), an A+ would be equal to superlative.