Ultimate Boredom surfing - comparison of Reid and BB draft success

[Deus Irae]

It takes at least three full years to evaluate a draft class.

National Football League: NFL Draft History - by Team

Aside from Jerod Mayo and Matt Slater, the New England Patriots 2008 NFL Draft was terrible.

Aside from Pat Chung and Sebastian Vollmer, the the New England Patriots 2009 NFL Draft has been disappointing, to say the least.

Gotta put Edelman down as a 2009 success...

 

[plk]

If a .333 hitter is only batting .250 in July, I don't need to compare him to other players to realize that he's not hitting up to his average.

Players batting averages swing widely over different time frames. They are the same hitter, and because you have a high sample size, the high and low points become less obvious than they do with a small sample size. Slumps are normal. Even the best hitters have them without anything having changed.

You decided to take the homer route and defend the down cycle instead of just admitting the obvious, which was that there was a down cycle and that such a cycle was what people were pointing to,

It is obvious that there was "a down cycle." I'm quite aware of it, and I never denied it.

and that it's a perfectly valid criticism to point out that BB wasn't drafting well during that time.

If you had read my post with any understanding, you would know that I was saying that such down periods inevitably occur any time that you are dealing with probabilities. If you set up a game in which there is no skill, but the probabilities are well known, such as in flipping a true coin, you will get the same down periods.

I'm quite sure that all general managers have such down periods, and I think it is quite relevant to discussing Belichick's performance.

What it comes down to is that you are judging Belichick by standards by which all general managers would fail.

 

[Deus Irae]

Players batting averages swing widely over different time frames. They are the same hitter, and because you have a high sample size, the high and low points become less obvious than they do with a small sample size. Slumps are normal. Even the best hitters have them without anything having changed.

If you have 3-4 down years, you're lucky to keep your job. In the case of the Patriots, having Brady covers a lot of ills, just as Manning was doing in Indy.

It is obvious that there was "a down cycle." I'm quite aware of it, and I never denied it.
If you had read my post with any understanding, you would know that I was saying that such down periods inevitably occur any time that you are dealing with probabilities. If you set up a game in which there is no skill, but the probabilities are well known, such as in flipping a true coin, you will get the same down periods.

I read your post with understanding. It was just a useless post in the context of the discussion, because it was irrelevant to the point I was making.

I'm quite sure that all general managers have such down periods, and I think it is quite relevant to discussing Belichick's performance.

My post had begun

The reality is that BB is as good in the first round as anyone, and that his overall performance has been about as good as that of any team in the NFL.

before noting his down time, so I clearly was not bashing on BB in the context of the rest of the league's GMs. You knew this, because you quoted it and gave a smartass comment as an answer:

Wow. I didn't know that you understood that. I am quite amazed.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/909527-ultimate-boredom-surfing-comparison-reid-bb-draft-success.html#post3010385

Since you continued the irrelevant responses and kept trying to harp on the comparison to other GMs when that was obviously not what I was pointing out and getting into, there's no sense continuing with this.

 

[jmt57]

I also don't buy the comeback "Well he acquired a first for the following year!" Come on Cousins, who buy into this? If he doesn't use the picks they are worthless until he does.

Yes, they are worthless until he does. The thing is they don't simply vaporize after an expiration date that coincides with the final game of the season.

Recycling first rounders every year does not make this roster stronger that year. There is no argument against that statement.

That is absolutely correct. As long as you are strictly looking at that one year, then trading into the future is of zero benefit for that current season.

He could be taking that recycled first rounder every year to his retirement. Fact is, that has never helped the Team.

This is not true, because one pick becomes two (or more), and 'never' extends beyond the final game of the current season.



Let's say I have a first round pick and trade it for a second round pick this year as well as next year's first. If you look at it from the very narrow perspective of how that affects this year's team and only this year's team then yes, that is a horrible trade; all I did was give myself a later (less valuable pick).

Now let's say I repeat that same exercise every year from now to the end of time. What is the end result? I have netted one free extra second round pick in every single future draft class.

By comparison sake if Roger Goodell declared that he was going to give some team an extra second round pick in every draft from now to the day he was removed from office, would fans be okay with that? No, of course not; we would consider that to be an unfair advantage for that team.

So why are we upset if this team does something that has the same identical net effect?

Continually trading that first for next year's first and this year's second is the equivalent of living off the interest and never touching the principal. It doesn't matter what the success ratio of those second round picks is, as long as it is more than zero. Even if it is only one out of three or one out of four, it's still a 'free' pick that contributed to the team.



Does the concept of trading up to get a player that has a higher probability of being an impact player have merit? Yes it does.

Does the concept of standing pat and drafting two late first round players have merit? Yes it does.

Does the concept of trading down to gain additional picks, knowing that there is no such thing as a sure thing while working the draft like an annuity have merit? Yes it does.



There is no absolute correct way nor an absolute incorrect way. Personally I like the idea of the annuity that pays out each and every year, and lean towards the strategy of accumulating draft picks - because for every Peyton Manning there is a Ryan Leaf, and for every Vince Wilfork there is a Vernon Gholston.

I can see the arguments for both sides; even though I have an opinion on the matter I just don't think it as cut and dried, black and white with no shades of gray as either side makes it out to be.

Personally I wouldn't characterize not finding fault with the logic behind trading down as automatically being a blind Koolaid chugging homer, but again, that's just my opinion.

 

[plk]

I read your post with understanding. It was just a useless post in the context of the discussion, because it was irrelevant to the point I was making.

In your first response to me you wrote

The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.

I take that to be your point. How is it not relevant to your post that such periods will inevitably occur when probabilities of success are involved?

Even if Belichick drafted with exactly the same level of skill every year, the results would still be different every year. Some years your picks hit, some they don't. Sometimes there will be a run of bad luck.

Belichick's results were poor. We have no way of knowing if his drafting was poor or if he made as good picks as in other drafts, but just didn't hit on as many of them.

If your intellectual style is such that you are comfortable evaluating a person's performance without considering the performance of others at the same task, then I guess that's just the way you are.

 

[Deus Irae]

In your first response to me you wrote I take that to be your point. How is it not relevant to your post that such periods will inevitably occur when probabilities of success are involved?

Even if Belichick drafted with exactly the same level of skill every year, the results would still be different every year. Some years your picks hit, some they don't. Sometimes there will be a run of bad luck.

Belichick's results were poor. We have no way of knowing if his drafting was poor or if he made as good picks as in other drafts, but just didn't hit on as many of them.

Actually, we do have some insight on this. We have the insight from Holley's book (War Room), and we have the insight on 2007 (BB's comments about talent level overall in that draft vis-a-vis taking players rounds above where he thought their value was).

If BB drafted with exactly the same level of skill every year, the results would be essentially the same every year, because the 'skill' variance would be 0, which means that only the probabilities, that you earlier tried to argue were pretty much everything, and the overall talent depth in each draft would vary, and they'd be within obvious ranges. That has not been the case here, as you can see simply by doing comparisons within one player group (TE/CB/etc...).

If your intellectual style is such that you are comfortable evaluating a person's performance without considering the performance of others at the same task, then I guess that's just the way you are.

My intellectual style is that I understand something (record of other GMs) can have significance in one aspect of a conversation (BB v. other GMs) and zero significance in another aspect of that same conversation (BB v. BB). You don't seem to be able, or willing, to grasp that. Now, you can keep making lame personal shots but, since you haven't made a single point of value, I'm done with you.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

No one is as good as Belichick would have to be before some people would stop complaining. You can only evaluate a general manager's draft success by comparing him to other general manager's success. Otherwise you are like someone complaining that a hitter is only batting 0.333. He is only getting one hit out of every three at-bats. Surely a good hitter would be able to get at least two hits out of every three. A really good hitter, more than that.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

agrees that Reid and Belichick are close and both very good.

One significant difference in terms of Dave Stoessel's evaluation:

Reid: First: 11 picks, seven hits = 64 percent success rate
Belichick: First: 11 picks, 10 hits = 91 percent success rate

As with all of this, it is a small sample size, but I attribute the difference to Belichick's not gambling more than he has to on first-round picks. That is a policy that some posters strenuously object to and wish that he would abandon.

This is one of the primary flaws whenever most people complain about how well (or poorly) a person or team drafts; they'll point out a percentage, but with no standard in regards to what is a good, average or poor percentage that number is meaningless. The second biggest flaw is that there is no standard to what is a good, average or poor (bust) pick; everyone seems to have there own fuzzy definition. The third major flaw is that far too many fall into the 'the team drafted Player X; they could have drafted Player Y' argument, which again is meaningless and irrelevant without any context of comparison to other teams.

Graham, Watson, Meriweather, Maroney, McCourty and Solder all hits?
Graham and Watson were not worth the 1st round price tag. Maroney and Meriweather didn't see the end of their rookie contract. McCourty took a giant step back in year two. Solder looks to be a hit but is it too early to definitively say that?

Seymour, Warren,Wilfork, Mankins and Mayo are the only ones I would say they definitely hit on. With Solder likely on his way and McCourty possibly turning it around.

JMT57 is right.

 

[DW Toys]

Yes, they are worthless until he does. The thing is they don't simply vaporize after an expiration date that coincides with the final game of the season.


That is absolutely correct. As long as you are strictly looking at that one year, then trading into the future is of zero benefit for that current season.


This is not true, because one pick becomes two (or more), and 'never' extends beyond the final game of the current season.



Let's say I have a first round pick, and trade it for a second round pick this year and next year's first. If you look at it from the very narrow perspective of how that affects this year's team and only this year's team then yes, that is a horrible trade; all I did was give myself a later (less valuable pick).

Now let's say I repeat that same exercise every year from now to the end of time. What is the end result? I have netted one free extra second round pick in every single future draft class.

By comparison sake if Roger Goodell declared that he was going to give some team an extra second round pick in every draft from now to the day he was removed from office, would fans be okay with that? No, of course not; we would consider that to be an unfair advantage for that team.

So why are we upset if this team does something that has the same identical net effect?

Continually trading that first for next year's first and this year's second is the equivalent of living off the interest and never touching the principal. It doesn't matter what the success ratio of those second round picks is, as long as it is more than zero. Even if it is only one out of three or one out of four, it's still a 'free' pick that contributed to the team.



Does the concept of trading up to get a player that has a higher probability of being an impact player have merit? Yes it does.

Does the concept of standing pat and drafting two late first round players have merit? Yes it does.

Does the concept of trading down to gain additional picks, knowing that there is no such thing as a sure thing while working the draft like an annuity have merit? Yes it does.



There is no absolute correct way nor an absolute incorrect way. Personally I like the idea of the annuity that pays out each and every year, and lean towards the strategy of accumulating draft picks - because for every Peyton Manning there is a Ryan Leaf, and for every Vince Wilfork there is a Vernon Gholston.

I can see the arguments for both sides; even though I have an opinion on the matter I just don't think it as cut and dried, black and white with no shades of gray as either side makes it out to be.

Personally I wouldn't characterize not finding fault with the logic behind trading down as automatically being a blind Koolaid chugging homer, but again, that's just my opinion.

Fair enough. Good retort. I don't agree with everything but at the end of the day, I still prefer a targeted FA class and /or trades like 07.

The Draft is a crap shoot and top to bottom 1-7 only a 17% chance of a top impact player or long term starter in a period of three years as a judging point.

It is by far the cheaper venue to gather players for the roster but the percentage of success are about one third of that of picking up a FA that has made some resume in the NFL. You miss there too but not 83% of the time. The Draft turns over your roster more than anything. Some great , some JAGS.

My point is that he is turning a 51% (using their figures) graded success of that first round pick to a massive experiment of a plethora of lower round players that have a 13% success rate as what this article called "a hit".

It pointed out that the conceptual reality that Reid is a weak Drafter versus the superior Drafting BB is myth. The first round picks Bill is very successful with. The later picks, not so much regardless of the trading around, which he still winds up grading the same down there as Reid. I.E. the BB trade downs waste first round picks and waste his effort trying to capitalize on quantity. It is just not working.

As far as next years chips go. Sounds good in theory. You are right, they do not vaporize, but BB is like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Nothing changes to make a difference in those wealth of added picks. It goes from year to year to year to year as he just recycles that pick which eventually gain perhaps a second or third as the payoff,which in-turn are traded and re traded for lower talent picks.......... yet again to amuse the media it appears. No one really knows how effective actually keeping that first is when and if he uses it because he never plays those chips.

Another misconception is that BB is a great Drafter because he trades down alot. Take away 2010 and the Pats are in the lower third of the league as far as Draft. He's not terrible, he is just fair. A+ for coaching, B+++ for FA and Trade pick ups and some luck in UDFA, and perhaps a C for his actual Draft prowess. It's pretty well documented.
DW Toys

 

[plk]

If BB drafted with exactly the same level of skill every year, the results would be essentially the same every year,

That is just not the way probability works.

because the 'skill' variance would be 0,

The skill level in flipping a coin is always the same, zero, but over short runs, you will typically find a considerable variation in the number of heads and tails. (The ratio will approach 1 in large samples, but not necessarily in small samples.) Think about any sort of gambling in which there is no skill. People can have runs of good luck and runs a bad luck. Sometimes quite long ones.

which means that only the probabilities, that you earlier tried to argue were pretty much everything,

You have to get them right. But that probabilities are involved means that you can be doing everything right, and still have a string of misses.

My intellectual style is that I understand something (record of other GMs) can have significance in one aspect of a conversation (BB v. other GMs) and zero significance in another aspect of that same conversation (BB v. BB). You don't seem to be able, or willing, to grasp that.

You are still saying that Belichick should be as successful as he usually is or he is drafting badly. Just show that you understand that even the best of the other general managers will have a similar number of bad result years, and I will be happy.

 

[plk]

Take away 2010 and the Pats are in the lower third of the league as far as Draft. He's not terrible, he is just fair. A+ for coaching, B+++ for FA and Trade pick ups and some luck in UDFA, and perhaps a C for his actual Draft prowess. It's pretty well documented.
DW Toys

There is documentation that disagrees with you.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

There is documentation that disagrees with you.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

Documentation that considers at least one of Maroney or Meriweather a "hit."

 

[Deus Irae]

That is just not the way probability works.

That's exactly the way probability works, actually. When you eliminate everything but the odds, it's just a matter of the odds. That's pretty obvious stuff.

The skill level in flipping a coin is always the same, zero, but over short runs, you will typically find a considerable variation in the number of heads and tails. (The ratio will approach 1 in large samples, but not necessarily in small samples.) Think about any sort of gambling in which there is no skill. People can have runs of good luck and runs a bad luck. Sometimes quite long ones.

None of this applies to the 0 variance comment. You seem to like to post things that have nothing to do with the post you're responding to.

No, as I said before, probabilities aren't anywhere near everything. You have to get them right. But that probabilities are involved means that you can be doing everything right, and still have a string of misses.

No, you made your position on this quite clear:

Wow. I didn't know that you understood that. I am quite amazed. Drafting is all a matter of probabilities, and any time you are dealing with probabilities, particularly with a small sample size, there will be runs of good and bad luck. (If you are flipping a coin, you don't just alternate heads and tails; you get amazingly long runs of just heads or just tails.)

Do you know of any general manager who has not had at least the same number of equally "bad" years?

So you're now backtracking, while still acting as if you've got it right when you don't.

You are still saying that Belichick should be as successful as he usually is or he is drafting badly. Just show that you understand that even the best of the other general managers will have a similar number of bad result years, and I will be happy.

Actually, I said no such thing. What I said was:

...
The reality is that BB is as good in the first round as anyone, and that his overall performance has been about as good as that of any team in the NFL. The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.

It's not an either/or situation. It's an "and..." situation.

You keep posting as if you know what the hell you're talking about when you clearly don't. I think you may not be tall enough for this ride.

 

[plk]

Documentation that considers at least one of Maroney or Meriweather a "hit."

It has the advantage of being a long-term and objective evaluation.

Whether you agree with their judgment about specific players, all the players are being judged by the same standards.

If you just look at the numbers, of course Meriweather is a hit. Two Pro Bowls.

 

[DarrylS]

Nice to see the comparison. Puts things in perspective that BB isn't as bad as everyone on this board thinks he is in the draft.

He is not that bad at all... better without Pioli.

 

[plk]

That's exactly the way probability works, actually. When you eliminate everything but the odds, it's just a matter of the odds. That's pretty obvious stuff.

Yes, it is just the odds. In flipping a coin, the odds of a head are 50%. If you look at a table of coin flips, you will see that they typically do not alternate a head and then a tail. You get runs of each. The point is that even with well-defined odds, you do not get well-defined or consistent results (except with a large sample size).

None of this applies to the 0 variance comment.

The easiest example of constant skill is no skill. The point is that even in a game with no skill, you will still get results that look like good draft years and bad draft years.

So you're now backtracking, while still acting as if you've got it right when you don't.

I removed the line "No, as I said before, probabilities aren't anywhere near everything." before I saw your post when I realized that it would be misinterpreted.

Drafting is not about selecting the "best" player. It's about correctly assessing the probability that a particular player will be successful. There aren't any sure things, just probabilities. And whenever you have probabilities, you will have runs of success and of failure that have nothing to do with skill. They occur even with zero skill.

 

[Avenger]

Good analyses. If anything it proves that his dumping top picks for lower quantity has been poor. If you dissect it further and see the lower round "misses", these are actually what BB turned the first rounders into. This validates the fact that his trading down makes a 51% top tier pick to be a good player into a 13% chance. He goes quantity in exchange for quality in his down trading.

I also don't buy the comeback "Well he acquired a first for the following year!" Come on Cousins, who buy into this? If he doesn't use the picks they are worthless until he does. Recycling first rounders every year does not make this roster stronger that year. There is no argument against that statement. He could be taking that recycled first rounder every year to his retirement. Fact is, that has never helped the Team. He is the best Coach in the business but He hits himself with a hammer because it feels so good when he stops! Meaning more talent to start with takes less time to produce the best player.
I love the underdog as much as the next guy, but this article further emphasizes some waste of his valuable time.

The correct theory is you use that added 1st round (or upper end of the Draft) pick to better your position to gain a more talented player. Well all his maneuvering to get more lower end Draft picks in quantity has not worked as his comparison to Reid suggests. Fact is Reid s success in lower end picks is about the same. Advantage of many picks stockpiled?.........Nyet!

No way to sugar coat that for the Koolaiders.
DW Toys

If recycling the 1st gets us a 13 percent chance in the second, that means every 7-8 years he gets a hit and still has the 1st. But that doesn't account for the fact that it gets us picks higher than our own and recycle the later one, it's essentially trading up for nothing and you get a free second. And I think his real success rate with trading into the second is much better than 13%, even if it is only 30-40% it is worth it because
you keep the first for the next year.

 

[NSPF]

Look Deus, most of the time you're a great poster. Sometimes though, you can be unbelievably dense.

If BB drafted with exactly the same level of skill every year, the results would be essentially the same every year

Come on man, "That's exactly how probability works"? Really? Probability means that there's the same outcome every time? That's really interesting, I think they might need to rewrite every statistics book ever written.

You're probably not wrong about BB not being as skillful as usual. The problem is posters like you and plk always want to see things black and white. You're both right. It doesn't have to be either "BB was less skillful during that period, regardless of luck" or "BB was just as skillful but had bad luck." It's probably both. He probably didn't make decisions quite as well as he usually does, and he probably had some bad luck.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

It has the advantage of being a long-term and objective evaluation.

Whether you agree with their judgment about specific players, all the players are being judged by the same standards.

If you just look at the numbers, of course Meriweather is a hit. Two Pro Bowls.

Being released before his rookie contract was up means he wasn't a hit. That's much more telling than a bogus pro bowl appearance or two.

 

[plk]

And I think his real success rate with trading into the second is much better than 13%, even if it is only 30-40% it is worth it because you keep the first for the next year.

Someone thinks that a normal success rate in the second round is 13%? Belichick gets blasted for around a 50% success rate which I believe is quite high. People who are determined to prove that Belichick is bad at drafting will claim a lower rate, but I believe, objectively, it is around 50%.

 

[plk]

Being released before his rookie contract was up means he wasn't a hit. That's much more telling than a bogus pro bowl appearance or two.

I am not arguing about what is a hit and what isn't. The point is the article chose their definition and applied it to all the players. It is really hard to come up with an objective evaluation of a large number of football players (much easier with baseball and basketball) and Pro Bowl appearances are at least an objective fact.