Northern Raider wrote: ↑April 28, 2020, 12:53 pm
Botman wrote: ↑April 28, 2020, 12:14 pm
Northern Raider wrote: ↑April 28, 2020, 11:30 am
I've seen you quote that figure of 60% failure with 2nd round picks a number of times. Where does that come from?
It's a common figure thrown around in the league when GM's etc are interviewed. Im not sure if it's rooted in some kind analysis, but it pretty well lines up with my general feel of the league. The best GM's in the league have more misses than hits.
I think its fair to say a successful draft pick is somebody who somebody who becomes a regular NFL starter or at least a full time roster position. I would be shocked if only 40% of 2nd round picks achieved that status
Pro Football reference has some stuff on this which is quite cool... it has an DrAV, which is a stat they've come up with which gives a figure on average accumulation of value for the team that drafted that player, it's quite a complex little system but in all my research on it, that's been the best i've found... they also have a stat that shows the number of years that player was the primary starter at his position which is a good base measurement for success.
You can read more about their AV methods here:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... x37a8.html
Just looking at 2013-14-15-16... i pick these years because by now we should really know who is who in those zoo's yeah? Like someone might fall of a cliff, or be a very late bloomer but at this point mostly we can assume they are what they are
I used a 50% career metric for the primary starter, so be considered successful i say as a 2nd round pick you should be the primary starter for more than 50% of your seasons, so in 2013 and 2014 above 3, in 2015 above 2, in 2016 above 1.
I've used a DrAv value of 20. I think it's fair to say if you've delivered a metric of 20/100 to the team that drafted you, they probably feel like they didnt get get value from the pick.
2013 (7 years in the league)
15/32 were not primary starter for their team for more than 3 years in 6... 46% of the class
20/32 have an DrAV value of 20 or less... 62.5% of the class
2014 (6 years in the league)
18/32 were not primary starter for their team for more than 3 years in 6... 56% of the class
22/32 have an DrAV value of 20 or less... 68.75% of the class
2015 (5 years in the league)
18/32 were not the primary starter for their team for more than 2 years in 5... 56% of the class
20/32 have an DrAV value of 20 or less... 62.5% of the class
2016
12/32 were not the primary starter for their team for more than 2 years in 5... 37.5% of the class
21/32 have an DrAV value of 20 or less... 65.6% of the class
... make of that what you will on the success rates of second round picks
(or pick apart the methodology, as a data guy i know it's far from perfect because it dont think take into account for someone like Ronald Darby who the eagles traded a 3rd and Jordan Matthews to obtain him, but those are rare cases i guess)
But certain every analytics person i've heard speak of it, says high draft picks are over valued, and the analytics community trends towards the idea that it's not about having high picks, it's about having a high volume of picks... more tickets in the lottery as they say... of course you still need strong scouting to get the most out of picks... Sashi Brown had a ton of picks and got nothing from any of them really. So that's sort of what makes it tough
Anecdotally, 60% failure rate feels about right, good teams will hit higher, bad teams lower (that in itself contributes to the end product of the player) and the average wash seems to be right in that zone.. though i concede thats a really crude way of doing things... i enjoyed the task though, it's pretty interesting to think about
(counter argument, and feeds into my Lamb criticism, if 2nd round picks arent actually THAT valuable, just give the **** up to get Lamb ****)