An Article for Our Resident Economists

[Box_O_Rocks]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMZM4MOpUzVM&refer=home

U.S. sportswriters analyzed the National Football League draft during the past week and quickly reached a consensus: The Cleveland Browns were the champs.
-----
Why rely on opinion when there is scientific evidence? The best available model of the football draft tells a very different story: It suggests that the Browns' draft was only the 17th best out of 32 teams. The big winner: The Oakland Raiders.
-----
The six biggest losers contain some familiar faces, and one big surprise. They were, in order, Washington, New England, Houston, Seattle, Dallas and the New York Jets.
-----
The New England Patriots, a team that has demonstrated in the past a clear understanding of the economics of football, surprisingly also appeared in the loser column this time around. The Patriots not only traded their picks for established veterans like storied receiver Randy Moss, but exchanged other draft choices for selections in next year's draft.

That means they will likely show up as big winners the next time around, which will help them in the long run, but the 2007- 2008 season will disappoint Patriots fans.

This ought to get a few folks foaming at the mouth. Happy Monday!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I read the article. Interesting stuff if you're into this kind of thing, but I'll stick to Football Outsiders or KC Joyner myself.

Three comments:

One, I think the Patriots flunked not because they "paid too much" for the "wrong players" but because they didn't have any picks in the rounds that the model says are most valuable, so they couldn't show up as doing well.

Two, the model's only been around for one year, so the fact that it predicted accurately in its first try last year could be random.

Three, maybe we should line the two economists up at Left Guard and Tackle and see what happens.

 

[RayClay]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMZM4MOpUzVM&refer=homeThis ought to get a few folks foaming at the mouth. Happy Monday!

Never trust an economist who's trying to sell a popular book.

This "theory" only works when there are highly delineated groups of: teams that
paid top dollar for free agents, teams that paid for high round draft choices and teams that trade down into the second and third rounds.

Someone should do a study on the effect a book deal will have on otherwise prudent economists.

Yes, I have a Bach in Econ.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One interesting question--did they analyze for other factors (e.g., the fact that the Pats went from the AFC West and NFC South in 2005 to the AFC South and NFC Nothing in 2006)?

Somehow, I'm guessing not.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Yes, I have a Bach in Econ.

Confession is good for the soul.

 

[RayClay]

Confession is good for the soul.

Not that I ever did anything with it.

As a matter of fact, getting into arguments about economics on message boards is the most frustrating exercise imaginable.

I don't think you could write a popular interest book based on sound economic principles that anyone would want to read.

That's why those Freakonomics guys just said, "screw it, we're making money, let's just do a study about monkey prostitutes".

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I am actually glad that someone expects us to have a disappointing season because I am frankly tired of reading many articles that pick us as SB fav's even before the exhibition games. We have managed to set a very high bar right out of the gate.

That said, can't wait for the season to start and see how everything plays out.

Here's to hoping that we set another record for taking at least two more SBs consecutively!

Go PATS!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Never trust an economist who's trying to sell a popular book.

This "theory" only works when there are highly delineated groups of: teams that
paid top dollar for free agents, teams that paid for high round draft choices and teams that trade down into the second and third rounds.

Someone should do a study on the effect a book deal will have on otherwise prudent economists.

Yes, I have a Bach in Econ.

Exactly. And, since the Patriots didn't have second and third round picks, going from 24 to 127 between their initial 2007 picks, they were destined to "fail" this model, which values those rounds highest. The model builders would argue that the Patriots were hurt by missing those rounds. But, the model has only worked one season so there's no way of telling whether Rounds Two and Three statistically drive the value of a draft.

I don't think too many people would disagree that the value for money isn't there in the low picks of round one. Bob Kraft, among others, has said that many times, so there's no big insight in pointing that out.

 

[FrreeeBird]

An analytical study based off of one years past performance? And hes passing judgement from it?

 

[gomezcat]

It is an interesting article. Before criticising them too much, bear in mind the second paragraph that I have quoted:

"The New England Patriots, a team that has demonstrated in the past a clear understanding of the economics of football, surprisingly also appeared in the loser column this time around. The Patriots not only traded their picks for established veterans like storied receiver Randy Moss, but exchanged other draft choices for selections in next year's draft.
That means they will likely show up as big winners the next time around, which will help them in the long run, but the 2007- 2008 season will disappoint Patriots fans."

I personally think they are wrong about Moss and Welker not bringing value to the Pats. They both really want to play here and I think they will pan out. I'll take someone with Moss' and Welker's proven ability in the NFL every single time for 2nd and 4th rounders.

However, I think the premise of the article, i.e. that top 1st picks are paid way above their value in comparison to lower round picks, is a good one. Personally, I think it is insane that a 22 year old with no NFL experience is paid as much as some of them are.

 

[psychoPat]

.... I'll take someone with Moss' and Welker's proven ability in the NFL every single time for 2nd and 4th rounders.

However, I think the premise of the article, i.e. that top 1st picks are paid way above their value in comparison to lower round picks, is a good one. Personally, I think it is insane that a 22 year old with no NFL experience is paid as much as some of them are.

Entirely agree with you, g'cat.

However, i'll bet that the model simply makes no allowance for veterans received in trade for picks
... ignoring that factor rather than devaluing it.

I have been wondering whether Belioli have decided that, on the whole,
rookies restricted to 4-year deals may not be worth the development costs expended on them.
Proven vets who make themselves available at fair value
may seem more attractive under the new CBA, with its novel contract timeframe
- which, you recall, was aimed at the Patriots.

 

[RayClay]

Exactly. And, since the Patriots didn't have second and third round picks, going from 24 to 127 between their initial 2007 picks, they were destined to "fail" this model, which values those rounds highest. The model builders would argue that the Patriots were hurt by missing those rounds. But, the model has only worked one season so there's no way of telling whether Rounds Two and Three statistically drive the value of a draft.

I don't think too many people would disagree that the value for money isn't there in the low picks of round one. Bob Kraft, among others, has said that many times, so there's no big insight in pointing that out.

You wouldn't need a kindergarten education to see that Randy Moss at 3 mil should be worth more than any fourth rounder no matter how little he makes.

Plus, to add to the silliness, different teams have different needs. If they Pats drafted 5 players in rounds 2-3, it just means some lucky team is going to pick up great value on the waiver wire for nothing.

You can only carry 53!

By the way, Peyton Manning was a damn good value for the Colts. Hard to fit human beings in to economic models.

This deal is based on our "middle player value" paradigm and that's dead for us now anyway.

 

[Fencer]

Basically, the article says that the trade value chart is totally fried because of the salary ramifications.