Thanks. I guess.
In fact, I had read the entire thread - even re-read a couple comments to make certain I understood them - BEFORE your first comment which "suspects" that BB "realizes that the chart is useless and does not use it."
The subsequent discussion (which I did read and RE-READ several times) appeared to begin with a claim something like, "the original design of the Draft Value Chart is 'flawed' and, thus, 'unreliable'." Which made me ask myself the question, "'Unreliable' for what?"
As far as I knew, Mike McCoy developed it in 1991 for Jerrah Jones as a shorthand for determining an approximate, history-based, fair "exchange rate" for pick-for-pick trades, just to make sure they didn't get totally hosed since they had about a gazillion of them that year. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual ultimate performance value of the actual players selected with those picks. IOW, it wasn't designed or intended to be anymore "predictive" of player performance value than the pick order itself - it was merely a translation of that pick order to make the math easier when exchanging picks with other teams while working on a deadline. Nothing more, nothing less.
It subsequently became clear that this was exactly the complaint about the Chart and its original design - that the design made it NOT accurately predictive of the ultimate player "quality." Which caused me to think, "Right. And water is wet. Am I missing something? I mean, since this guy keeps telling me that I just don't understand because I jumped into the middle of the discussion."
Then the discussion got on to, essentially, playful thoughts regarding perhaps a re-design of the chart that WOULD incorporate this predictive feature, eventually leading to you posting a link to the marvelous work done by Chase Stuart at PFR (published exactly three years ago today) in which he compares the AVs of selected players by pick order (his chart) to SCV and finds that . . . . they're actually not that far apart. There are discrepancies between them at certain areas along the curves, but, he concludes,
So, to sum, I'd really like someone to - please, please, pretty please with a cherry on top - explain to me WHAT THE HELL IT IS THAT I'M "NOT GETTING"!
Since you understand that the chart was based on trades, and not on any attempt to determine the relative value of picks based on historical results, then you understand almost all that I am saying.
In addition to that, I am saying that if you base your trades on an accurate perception of the picks relative value, you are going to make more advantageous trades than if you base your trades on an incorrect perception of value.
Because of the way that the Draft Value Chart was constructed, it is not clear that it accurately reflects the relative values of picks. Perhaps the GM's at the time had a great intuitive sense of relative value. Perhaps they did not. I don't know.
I suspect that Bill Belichick has a very sophisticated sense of the relative value of picks. Maybe this is the same as the Draft Value Chart; maybe it isn't. I have a strong suspicion that it isn't.
The above is all that I am saying. It is all that I have any interest in discussing.
My problem with your posts is not that they don't contain good points, or that I don't agree with them, but that I don't understand their relevance to the the very simple points that I am making. Maybe something was there, and I missed it, but there was a lot of other stuff that, however interesting, is not responsive to what I am saying. And if you don't respond to what I am saying, I get the impression that you don't understand it. I charitably assumed it was because you had not read the earlier posts.
I described one of your posts as being a 90° to what I am saying. That sort of covers it.
You can't argue with me about how close the draft value chart comes to reflecting actual value, because I've said repeatedly that I do not know.
If you want to argue that there is no advantage to a GM having a chart that reflects the actual value of the picks, then that would be interesting.
If you want to argue Bill Belichick regards the Value Graph Chart as very accurate in reflecting value, that would also be interesting although I'm quite sure his view of the chart is unknowable outside the Patriots organization.
You can't argue that I've said the Draft Value Chart is in general useless, because I said it in the context of BB likely having a better one. As I pointed out, even to BB, it is useful because it tells him how other teams will value trades.
First of all, there's nothing "OFFICIAL" about the Standard Value Chart. There are no "rules" enforcing it on anyone, it's merely a standardized reference GUIDELINE.
Posts such as the above did give me the impression that you did not understand what I was saying. It was, as I pointed out before, a joke, and I would've thought an obvious one to anyone who had read the earlier posts.
You can obviously post anything that you want to, but if are going to quote me, then try to respond to what I am saying in the thread and not just to your perception of what I might be saying based on a snippet.
