Interesting analysis of Pats drafting

[QuantumMechanic]

From the Skeptical Sports guys:

Don’t Play Baseball With Bill Belichick » Skeptical Sports Analysis

One of the unheralded elements to the Patriots’ success—perhaps rivaling Tom Brady himself in actual importance—is their penchant for stock-piling draft-picks in the “sweet spot” of the NFL draft (late 1st to mid-2nd round), where picks have the most surplus value. Once again, here’s the killer graph from the famous Massey-Thaler study on the topic...

 

[JoeSixPat]

From the Skeptical Sports guys:

Don’t Play Baseball With Bill Belichick » Skeptical Sports Analysis

Interesting analytical approach... So if I'm reading it right, Belichick's history drafting quality players in the 2nd round has been the key to his success?

 

[Observer]

Interesting analytical approach... So if I'm reading it right, Belichick's history drafting quality players in the 2nd round has been the key to his success?

:confused2:

 

[mayoclinic]

Interesting analytical approach... So if I'm reading it right, Belichick's history drafting quality players in the 2nd round has been the key to his success?

Shhh, don't tell anyone ... don't you know that BB is terrible at drafting in the 2nd round?

 

[patchick]

Interesting analytical approach... So if I'm reading it right, Belichick's history drafting quality players in the 2nd round has been the key to his success?

Pretty much -- they're talking specifically about concentrating draft firepower in the section of the draft with the best cost/benefit ratio, which has been the late 1st-2nd. Not so much about player selection as a broader view of rate of returns.

Over on the draft board, I recently started a thread about the 2nd round, because of a LOT of comments suggesting that the Pats have an atrocious record with 2nd-round picks:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/918758-patriots-record-2nd-round.html

What I came away with was that they actually have a very good hit rate on 2nd rounders. The trick is that they've made such a huge number of picks in that round that failures naturally mount up, and that's what fans remember.

This article seems to support that conclusion, and further suggests that the much-maligned 2nd round has actually been a key engine of the team's success. (Alas, I don't expect it to stop the cries of, "b-b-but, Chad Jackson! Darius Butler! See how terrible BB is with 2nd rounders? )

What's particularly interesting is the article's take on this year's draft -- that the trades up in the 1st indicate BB is adjusting to the changed "yield curve" of the new CBA, which has made higher picks better investments than in the past.

 

[mayoclinic]

What's particularly interesting is the article's take on this year's draft -- that the trades up in the 1st indicate BB is adjusting to the changed "yield curve" of the new CBA, which has made higher picks better investments than in the past.

I think that may play a role, but it's still likely to depend on the depth of each draft. The 2012 draft was relatively shallow at the top, and the Pats were able to trade up and get 2 guys who they rated highly - Mike Mayock's #9 and #15 prospects overall, I believe, FWIW. 2013 looks to potentially be a much deeper draft, so they might be better served by finding 1st round values at a bargain in the 2nd round, as they did with Rob Gronkowski in 2010.

 

[patchick]

I think that may play a role, but it's still likely to depend on the depth of each draft. The 2012 draft was relatively shallow at the top, and the Pats were able to trade up and get 2 guys who they rated highly - Mike Mayock's #9 and #15 prospects overall, I believe, FWIW. 2013 looks to potentially be a much deeper draft, so they might be better served by finding 1st round values at a bargain in the 2nd round, as they did with Rob Gronkowski in 2010.

Absolutely. Even under the old "yield curve," you had years like 2007 when they practically opted out of the draft rather than negotiating within it. So the shape of the draft class and the status of the existing roster are doubtless the biggest factors operating on a single year, but it will be interesting to see if a new long-term trend emerges with the new salary structure in place.

 

[Triumph]

Pretty much -- they're talking specifically about concentrating draft firepower in the section of the draft with the best cost/benefit ratio, which has been the late 1st-2nd. Not so much about player selection as a broader view of rate of returns.

Over on the draft board, I recently started a thread about the 2nd round, because of a LOT of comments suggesting that the Pats have an atrocious record with 2nd-round picks:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/918758-patriots-record-2nd-round.html

What I came away with was that they actually have a very good hit rate on 2nd rounders. The trick is that they've made such a huge number of picks in that round that failures naturally mount up, and that's what fans remember.

This article seems to support that conclusion, and further suggests that the much-maligned 2nd round has actually been a key engine of the team's success. (Alas, I don't expect it to stop the cries of, "b-b-but, Chad Jackson! Darius Butler! See how terrible BB is with 2nd rounders? )

What's particularly interesting is the article's take on this year's draft -- that the trades up in the 1st indicate BB is adjusting to the changed "yield curve" of the new CBA, which has made higher picks better investments than in the past.

In the other thread you said that Spikes was a full time starters by year 2. Thats false Brandon Spikes NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Wilson was very good playing beside Ty Law and Rodney Harrison but who wouldnt be?

Chung, yes he starts and is nothing special at all. Unless you want to call being apart of 2 (2010/2011) terrible pass defenses something to be proud of.

 

[patchick]

In the other thread you said that Spikes was a full time starters by year 2. Thats false Brandon Spikes NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Nope, I didn't. I never used the words "full time" -- I just looked for whether they started most of their games. Spikes was listed as a starter in 3/4 of his games in his first season, 2/3 in his second season. If you want 100% starts, we'd have to adjust Pittsburgh and Baltimore's numbers, too.

Wilson was very good playing beside Ty Law and Rodney Harrison but who wouldnt be?

Chung, yes he starts and is nothing special at all. Unless you want to call being apart of 2 (2010/2011) terrible pass defenses something to be proud of.

Again, I was just aiming for a simple, objective criterion. If you only count 2nd round picks as successful if the players are "special," every team's success rate would be very small indeed. (Hmm...Gronk, Vollmer, Light, Branch? Not awful, actually.)

 

[borg]

I'm a big fan of statistical analysis....and I can understand how it can be used as one tool of many in team building....but...as far as this guy's analysis of sweet spots and changing philosophies go.......he's reaching. Why, you ask?
Here's why? (in no particular order)

1) More premium picks are better than fewer premium picks.....regardless of changing financial dynamics/contract lengths.
.......1A) And if rosters expand (seems to be leaning that way under this new safety emphasis), need will be greater
.......1B) And...this new concussion era will unfortunately brand a large group of veterans with concussion histories with a scarlett letter. It may come to a point where this group becomes unsignable....therefore...diminishing pool of talent=greater need of new talent

2) NEED!....Patriots needed playmakers on a 31st ranked defense void of impact talent. Eleven years of stockpiling, and 2012 happened to be the year that BB used his chips.

3) The "sweet spot" of drafts the author refers to, back half of 1st rd/front half of second rd, is already on the roster in the form of 2.5 red shirt 2011 draft picks....Dowling and Vareen (Ridley less so). Look back at the 2011 draft and it is clear (to me) that all picks but one were chosen with 2012 in mind. Solder was depth until Light retired. The fact that Volmer was hurt elevated him early. Vareen....depth. Faulk had 1 year left, Vareen gets the redshirt year in waiting. Same with Ridley ....BJGE had one year left. Mallet.....we'll see on that one....but he was a luxory pick for a team with a surplus. Which leaves Dowling.....he was a need pick and would have been the starting CB if he stayed healthy. Remember, the lockout limited the offseason, and BB drafted in '11 with the future in mind.
My point here, BB already had his new influx of upper middleclass players on the roster, redshirted....therefore he could afford to spend some mid round draft pick capital to move up into the upperclass of the draft.

Conclusion: the 2012 draft was an anomaly as far as BB and the Patriots are concerned. More is better when talking about premium draft picks....especially as the league gets conservative in the health department. Depth will always be a major factor in success and I can't believe BB has changed his core team building philosophy. 2012 just happened to be a year when extreme need aligned with the availabilty of two players that fit the Patriots template to a tee. Jones....athletic, long armed, edge/pass rusher combo.....and Hightower ....versatile large LB. The need was high and the players were obtainable.

The bigger question ahead is: How does BB get back on normal track and gain some extra #1s and #2s. No way will he fall into line like most other teams with a traditional slotted draft. I bet that thought is killing him right now.

 

[Triumph]

Nope, I didn't. I never used the words "full time"

Full time.

I took my standard of success for a 2nd rounder to be "became a regular starter." Here's the breakdown:

Steelers: 8 total picks, 4 successful, 50% hit rate.

Patriots: 14 total picks, 7 successful, 50% hit rate.

So that's dead even at 50%...though I had to be verrrry generous to the Steelers to make it so. 3 of their 4 "successes" were only half-time starters during their rookie contracts, or only became starters in their 4th season. All 7 of the Patriots' "successes" were full-time starters by season 2.

Quite frankly, who really knows about Vollmer either?

Again, I was just aiming for a simple, objective criterion. If you only count 2nd round picks as successful if the players are "special," every team's success rate would be very small indeed. (Hmm...Gronk, Vollmer, Light, Branch? Not awful, actually.)

I just question whether or not if .500 is successful. Seems average.

If Tom Brady completes only half his passes, hes Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel. A WR on the Pats isnt going to be around very long dropping 50% of his passes when Welker is catching 70%. FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 WIDE RECEIVERS

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I think that may play a role, but it's still likely to depend on the depth of each draft. The 2012 draft was relatively shallow at the top, and the Pats were able to trade up and get 2 guys who they rated highly - Mike Mayock's #9 and #15 prospects overall, I believe, FWIW. 2013 looks to potentially be a much deeper draft, so they might be better served by finding 1st round values at a bargain in the 2nd round, as they did with Rob Gronkowski in 2010.

It's also where you are.

People tend to kinda forget that 2008-2011 was about roster tunrover.

Only Vince is still here from the 2007 defense.

2012 drafting could be selective because the roster has already been rebuilt.

 

[patchick]

Full time.

My apologies, lousy phrasing on my part! I said "regular starter" the first time, which is what I meant and what I should have said throughout. I considered Spikes a regular starter for those years, just as I consider Aaron Hernandez a regular starter for last year even though he didn't start every game (depending on matchups and formations). And most importantly, I applied the same standard to the other teams.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Full time.



Quite frankly, who really knows about Vollmer either?




I just question whether or not if .500 is successful. Seems average.

If Tom Brady completes only half his passes, hes Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel. A WR on the Pats isnt going to be around very long dropping 50% of his passes when Welker is catching 70%. FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 WIDE RECEIVERS

You are comparing second round draft success with pass completions?

Huh?

 

[patchick]

2) NEED!....Patriots needed playmakers on a 31st ranked defense void of impact talent. Eleven years of stockpiling, and 2012 happened to be the year that BB used his chips.

Need clearly plays a part, but...doesn't the lack of impact players on the 2011 defense show that the Patriots had a clear need for defensive playmakers in the 2011 draft? As I recall, everybody here thought so at the time.

As for stockpiling in the past then cashing it all in this year, the Patriots have actually been remarkably consistent in how much "chart value" they spend in the top 2 rounds -- between 1814 and 1940 points each year since 2008. (For perspective on how amazingly consistent that is, consider that if they'd spent ONLY the #7, #8 or #9 overall pick each of those years, they'd have had greater variability!)

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I think the Pats have done a remarkable job of re-inventing this team over the past 3 years while still winning the division each year and going to the SB last year, and good drafting has been a big part of that.

The only nit I'll pick is people continually claiming that the Pats MO on draft day is to always trade back, and that this year represented a new philosophy. I believe that BB actually has no tendencies and just decides based on the specific circumstances at that moment. He's never been afraid to move up, and has done so several times over the years when there's a guy worth moving up for at a fair cost.

That said, each year his team is different and has different needs. When completely rebuilding like he was from 08-10, he needed a lot of picks so trading back to get them made sense in a deep draft (depth of the draft field is a huge factor).

This year he wasn't as impressed with the depth (our 2nd round pick is evidence of that), and he also had the chits to move up and get a couple of guys with impact potential so he did it - no change of philosophy involved.

The only change of philosophy I've seen is molding the D to be faster and more flexible, which is heartening. We've been too slow and too ineffective on the pass rush, and he seems committed to adjusting that.

 

[mgteich]

Belichick has a remarkably good record with second round draftees (and first). Obviously, there are those who expect a record of 75% - 100% starters. This doesn't happen for any team.

I have always thought that it the THIRD round where Belichick has been less successful.

 

[patfanken]

When I started reading this article it reminded me of a statistics course I took when I was in college. It didn't go well there either. . However despite the fact that I didn't get a whole lot from the article, I have gotten a lot from the comments and one struck me as a great "summing up" statement, and it was from PatChick

I took my standard of success for a 2nd rounder to be "became a regular starter." Here's the breakdown:

Steelers: 8 total picks, 4 successful, 50% hit rate.

Patriots: 14 total picks, 7 successful, 50% hit rate.

So that's dead even at 50%...though I had to be verrrry generous to the Steelers to make it so. 3 of their 4 "successes" were only half-time starters during their rookie contracts, or only became starters in their 4th season. All 7 of the Patriots' "successes" were full-time starters by season 2.

BB accumulates pick for a very simple reason. More shots at the prize. PatChick's research points out the simple truth about the draft. Even in the best of organizations, you are going to miss as often as you hit. The more picks you have the more chances you have to pick good players. So the Pats "50%" yielded almost twice the hits as the Steelers simply because BB managed to manipulate the draft to accumulate more picks in the so called "sweet spot".

It also could be one of the reasons BB was unable to get the kind of value we would expect when he traded down this year. By now when BB calls about a trade, opposing GM's automatically feel they are about to get screwed, so their inclination is to pass.

 

[mayoclinic]

BB accumulates pick for a very simple reason. More shots at the prize. PatChick's research points out the simple truth about the draft. Even in the best of organizations, you are going to miss as often as you hit. The more picks you have the more chances you have to pick good players.

Baltimore assistant GM Eric DeCosta agrees with you:

“The draft is all about luck,” DeCosta said. “The more picks you have, the better chance you have to get lucky more often.”

Baltimore Ravens | News | John Eisenberg: Ravens Cracked The Code

The article is a good read on the Ravens' drafting philsoophy, and is worth checking out.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

When I started reading this article it reminded me of a statistics course I took when I was in college. It didn't go well there either. . However despite the fact that I didn't get a whole lot from the article, I have gotten a lot from the comments and one struck me as a great "summing up" statement, and it was from PatChick


BB accumulates pick for a very simple reason. More shots at the prize. PatChick's research points out the simple truth about the draft. Even in the best of organizations, you are going to miss as often as you hit. The more picks you have the more chances you have to pick good players. So the Pats "50%" yielded almost twice the hits as the Steelers simply because BB managed to manipulate the draft to accumulate more picks in the so called "sweet spot".

It also could be one of the reasons BB was unable to get the kind of value we would expect when he traded down this year. By now when BB calls about a trade, opposing GM's automatically feel they are about to get screwed, so their inclination is to pass.

ken

Great job. It's too bad this actually has to be explained.

It's even better than that because extra picks doesn't also mean extra roster spots.

More people to fill a constant numbers of spots means more discarding.

The success rate is actually better.