Knowing how you guys look at "value", I plan on doing a value analysis on this mock and will post it when its complete. Film at eleven.
@Lyman Thanks for handling the majority of this mock. You did a helluva job and I was the fair recipient of the dreaded long-snapper. @Will Thanks for stepping in and handling duties for a full day and kicking in when needed. Well done. And thank you to everyone else that participated and helped to keep the ship afloat. It's always a privilege to get a chance to share in all of your opinions and thoughts on the draft.
Methodology: Like I’m sure the rest of you did, I started with a draft board consisting of 370 players. The overall ranking assigned to each of these players was the average ranking I got off of three separate on-line sources plus the actual draft results of the GMO draft. Once I had the average rankings assigned using this average, I simply renumbered it from 1 to 370. (I also sorted this list, by position, and assigned positional rankings.) Once I had the list with all players ranked, it wasn’t difficult to project a round for each player based on the overall ranking of a player. For example: Players ranked 1 through 22 were assigned a 1st Round grade (1.0), 22 through 42 a 1st/2nd round grade (1.5), 43 through 54 a 2nd round grade (2.0), etc. I did stretch the increments between grades as I got further into the rounds in order to accommodate 370 players versus only 256. As the draft progressed, I kept track of the overall selection in which each player was drafted and, obviously, recorded the round, pick within the round and team that drafted the player. So now I had a list showing a Projected Round and an Actual Round for each player. If you subtract the Actual Round from the Projected Round, you end up with what I call a Value Index. For example: A player that is projected to be drafted in the 2nd Round actually gets drafted in the 4th round, his Value Index would be a -2 (2-4=-2). Results: Even with 370 players on my list, you guys STILL found 15 players (4.0%) that weren’t previously ranked by any of my source lists (including the GMO). For purposes of this analysis, I only used the 241 out of 256 players that were on both my combined list and drafted (94.1%). Thus, I ended up with 129 players on my list that went undrafted. Seventy-seven players were drafted in a round lower than they were projected (32.0%) Seventy-eight players were drafted in the same range as they were projected (32.4%) Eighty-six players were drafted in a round higher than they were projected (35.7%) Of those 86 players drafted higher than projected, only 13 of them should be considered a “reach” as they were drafted a full 3 to 4 rounds higher than projected. All in all, not too bad for a bunch of amateurs. It would be interesting if I could find the time to plug in the numbers from the real life draft and run the same analysis.
This was really interesting to read, thanks for the effort you put in! I love this type of nerdy statistic stuff. Do you have a place where you store all the raw information? Would love to look in detail at the individual players and where they were taken relative to your projections.
If it's easy for you to share all of the information (e.g. if it's in a google doc file or something) then that would be super cool to see that. If not don't worry, just the one's that I drafted would be interesting too.
Keep in mind I used only the consolodated overall ranking I put together from multiple sources. Straight arithmatic after that with no input relative to what a team rep perceived to be a given team's needs.
Not really. Just sort by team and do the math. I was really trying to not single out individuals, though. I think everybody did a hellova job.
