https://x.com/AdamSchefter/status/1783084094001172969
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL7JiG0XsAAj8f6?format=jpg&name=medium)
What does this statistic prove? I think it's intent is to show success rate/fail rate by position but it completely ignores a team's budget at the time a player at a position might be due for their second contract. Maybe the team is in cap hell and can't sign him however in FA another team can. Does that mean the player was a failure? I don't think so. Maybe I am missing something.
Quote from: Philosophers on April 24, 2024, 08:26:24 AMWhat does this statistic prove? I think it's intent is to show success rate/fail rate by position but it completely ignores a team's budget at the time a player at a position might be due for their second contract. Maybe the team is in cap hell and can't sign him however in FA another team can. Does that mean the player was a failure? I don't think so. Maybe I am missing something.
From what I have seen, teams find a way to keep their best players. If the player is mediocre, or maybe just a bit above average, they will let them walk. However, if they are happy with their first-round pick, they almost always sign them to a second contract (it's not like free agency is a bounty of great players).
What I would argue is that I don't think draft success and failure is all that dependent on the position drafted. Rather, I believe it's dependent on the team doing the drafting. Poor teams tend to draft and develop prospects poorly, while good teams do the opposite.
I also think that to really drill down to meaningful stats, you need to break this out by the top and bottom half of the first round. Take WR; top 10 drafted WRs tend to perform better than the rest of round-one receivers.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 24, 2024, 08:35:46 AMFrom what I have seen, teams find a way to keep their best players. If the player is mediocre, or maybe just a bit above average, they will let them walk. However, if they are happy with their first-round pick, they almost always sign them to a second contract (it's not like free agency is a bounty of great players).
What I would argue is that I don't think draft success and failure is all that dependent on the position drafted. Rather, I believe it's dependent on the team doing the drafting. Poor teams tend to draft and develop prospects poorly, while good teams do the opposite.
I also think that to really drill down to meaningful stats, you need to break this out by the top and bottom half of the first round. Take WR; top 10 drafted WRs tend to perform better than the rest of round-one receivers.
Rich - what about all those DTs the Giants failed to sign in their second contracts? Guys like Barry Cofield, Linval Joseph, etc. I think the Giants decided to make choices but those guys seemed to have played good enough to earn a second contract.
Quote from: Philosophers on April 24, 2024, 08:40:36 AMRich - what about all those DTs the Giants failed to sign in their second contracts? Guys like Barry Cofield, Linval Joseph, etc. I think the Giants decided to make choices but those guys seemed to have played good enough to earn a second contract.
Joe,
The challenge of any evaluation of draft success is defining success. Is it a second contract? Is it a Pro Bowl? Is it a PFF grade or certain stats? Is it team victories? It's very difficult to define draft success, especially across all positions. Just take the O-line. If you draft a guard in round one, I think the expectation is that you will draft a Pro Bowl-level guard. If you draft a LT in round one, unless he is very high in the draft, just being a solid LT would be considered successful.
Pretty surprising IMHO. I would have thought that wide receiver would have the lowest miss rate and quarterback the highest. Instead receiver has the highest miss rate while quarterback is in the middle of the pack.
https://x.com/adamschefter/status/1783084094001172969?s=61&t=8pY1fIic9mTDjk4JVJPt9w
Quote from: madbadger on April 24, 2024, 11:50:36 AMPretty surprising IMHO. I would have thought that wide receiver would have the lowest miss rate and quarterback the highest. Instead receiver has the highest miss rate while quarterback is in the middle of the pack.
https://x.com/adamschefter/status/1783084094001172969?s=61&t=8pY1fIic9mTDjk4JVJPt9w
20 years of data probably skews things. The game has changed drastically since then, and I'd imagine corresponding "hit" and "miss" rates. But a more narrow approach would probably give you sample sizes too small to draw from.
IMO the chart in the original post shows why you take Harrison over the other "good ones" if you have a choice. Bob
What I take from that is "only 43% chance of success with a first round pick...a 57% chance of failure...unless you draft a center, which is ridiculously rare in first round"
It is not team specific nor is it meant to be anything other than as labeled, 1st-round picks that "hit" or "miss" by position. While the data covers the 20 years from 2000 -2019, it's not likely that the addition of a few more recent years will do much of anything to lessen the uncertainty at so many key positions whether or not we think the Giants deserve disproportionate blame.
Cheers!
I just hope the Giants aren't the 1 out of 12, if you know what I mean.
Forget the last 20 years and in total the Giants can write a novel on missed.
I would like to see a list of which team seems to miss more on 1st round picks in the past 50 years.
The funniest part is that the aggregate is a 43% hit rate. All these fans will get excited about players their teams draft in round one, yet they have chances lower than a single coin flip that the player will succeed.