I feel like a lot of my posts may come across as overly negative, making me the Grinch of the NFL Draft. Then again, history has shown that about 75% of the players do turn out be worth very little (damn it, there I go again). So, I thought I would list some more players from this most recent draft that the computer suggests might have a better than decent chance of turning out to be successes.
While I may have doubts about some of these players, I think they all have interesting stories or characteristics that will make it worthwhile to keep an eye on their progress. I tried to focus more on the oddballs, since high draft picks get plenty of attention already, unless I thought a highly regarded player was particularly interesting. I also probably leaned a bit more towards players who I thought presented good value relative to where they were selected. Obviously, I have to leave a lot of names off of this list, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the computer and I disliked such unmentioned players. I had to make some weird judgment calls about who I would include here.
When I make a reference to a player's Agility Score, Kangaroo Score, or some other athletic measurement, it should be noted that these scores can't be compared to the results for players at different positions. These scores only show how many standard deviations that a player is above or below average compared to others in his same position group. References to the Stat Score may also come up, but this relates only to wide receivers.
Pick #4, Lane Johnson, OT, Philadelphia Eagles - To some extent, it felt as if the press kind of dismissed Johnson as a guy who just "works out well", and felt he didn't belong in the same company as Eric Fisher, and Luke Joeckel. With a Kangaroo Score of 1.482, and an Agility Score of 1.381, it is true that his numbers do appear to be too good to be true. While I like Fisher, who also did well (but not as well), and to some extent Joeckel, the truth is that Johnson does more closely match the physical ideal standards for an offensive left tackle. Tackles with Johnson's rare athletic ability rarely fail, and even if he should fail to become a star, having a near guarantee of at least becoming a decent journeyman type, is worth a lot in my eyes. People often say that such players are boom or bust types, but this attitude that he appears "too good to be true, therefore it must not be true" is just peculiar. I think the floor for Johnson is actually quite high, and well worth the risk for where he was selected. Plus, he enjoys tormenting the press with made up stories about wrestling bears, which is another point in his favor.
Pick #13, Sheldon Richardson, DT, New York Jets - Again, some people seemed to think it was a reach to take Richardson earlier than Star Lotulelei, or Sharrif Floyd. The computer feels that the Jets actually made the correct choice here (at least if you are determined to take a defensive tackle). Athletically, Richardson was the superior prospect, with a 0.612 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.652 Agility Score. Lotulelei fell more into the average range (0.199 Kangaroo, and -0.038 Agility), and Floyd performed rather poorly (-0.930 Kangaroo, and 0.133 Agility). Richardson also averaged 9.25 tackles for a loss in his last two years, compared to Lotulelei's 9.5, and Floyd's 9.75, making them all fairly comparable in this area. Overall, Richardson's numbers put him in good, but not necessarily great company. Historically, defensive tackles who can jump over 30 inches, do over 30 repetitions on the bench press, and averaged 10 or more tackles for a loss, almost never fail (though they may turn out to be just average), and Richardson mostly meets these criteria (32", 30 repetitions, and 9.25 avg. TFL). I might need to post a list of people who fall into this weird group at some point.
Pick #22, Desmond Trufant, CB, Miami Dolphins - In the eyes of the computer, Trufant more closely fit the ideal physical mold of a successful CB than the other top prospects, Xavier Rhodes and Dee Milliner. His Ht/Spd Score (measuring his 40 time relative to his height) was a very good 0.732 standard deviations above average. His Agility Score was a truly excellent 1.463. While he slightly lagged behind the other prospects in creating turnovers in college, his numbers were still in the average range (6 total INTs, 3 FF). Will he end up being the top corner from this class? I don't know. At the very least, I would expect him to be a solid reliable player, which is more than I can say about some of the other options.
Pick #26, Datone Jones, DE/DT, Green Bay Packers - With a -0.261 Kangaroo, and a 1.351 Agility Score, Jones isn't quite as explosively powerful as I would like, but still a very gifted athlete overall. His average of 12.75 TFL during his last two years in college also reassures you that he made the most out of this physical ability. Still, as a 3-4 DE prospect, I don't like him quite as much as Kendall Reyes (0.999 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.640 Agility Score, with a 11.75 TFL avg), or Derek Wolfe (0.279 Kangaroo Score, and a 1.145 Agility Score, with a 14 TFL avg.)from the 2012 draft. If he had slid to the late 2nd round, or into the 3rd, I would have felt more comfortable with him. Nonetheless, I think he has a reasonable chance of upgrading the Packers defensive line.
Pick #27 DeAndre Hopkins, WR, Houston Texans- He was one of the computer's higher rated WR prospects, plus he gets to play opposite from Andre Johnson. Though there may have been other receivers that the computer liked even more, Hopkins probably wound up in one of the best situations to succeed.
Pick #52 Jamie Collins, OLB, New England Patriots- Hmm, I've pretty much covered this already, so I'll just move on.
Pick #53, Margus Hunt, DE/DT, Cincinnati Bengals - Hunt is someone I have to mention, even if he makes me nervous that he might be a disappointment. His 0.538 Kangaroo Score, and 1.279 Agility Score, are too significant to ignore. On the other hand, he is an older than ideal rookie (26 years old), who only produced okay stats in college, until his senior year where he was quite good. At 6' 8.5" tall, I also wonder if his height might actually become a disadvantage, particularly for someone who is merely 277# (it sounds weird to say "merely 277#"). Still, the announcers will have fun talking about how he is from Estonia, so that is worth something. I would have been too nervous to take him this highly (though it was tempting), but he is very physically gifted. In the end, I probably would have chosen him ahead of Datone Jones.
Pick #54 Jamar Taylor, CB, Miami Dolphins - He's not a big CB, but I thought he was quite scrappy. His measurables weren't bad either. His Ht/Spd Score was a solid 0.448, and his Agility Score was a similarly respectable 0.592. He also possessed a 2nd Gear Score of 0.16, suggesting that his acceleration could be even more impressive than his excellent 4.37 forty time might suggest. There might be guys with better stats, or combine numbers, but of the players who were acceptable in the eyes of the computer, he was one of the most fun to watch play.
Pick #62, Christine Michael, RB, Seattle Seahawks - I have no idea how he is ever going to get any playing time when stuck behind Marshawn Lynch and Robert Turbin. Still, he is the most physically perfect running back in the 2013 class. You can see how he compares athletically to the other 2013 RBs here.
Pick #71, T.J. McDonald, S, St. Louis Rams - I've already gotten grief from people for being a fan of his, but I still think there was good value in this pick. The computer has a harder time sorting out safeties, but still likes his measurables and college production. At 6'2", 219#, he definitely has excellent size for a safety. His 0.839 Ht/Spd Score was well above average, though his Agility Score of -0.063 is a bit more mundane. Still, this score is only showing his agility in comparison to all defensive backs, so for a safety it's actually a good result. He also had a 40" vertical jump, which shows some truly remarkable explosiveness. Some people were critical about his coverage abilities, but I didn't really notice this too much when I watched him play. To me, he was a guy who showed up all over the place, running up to make a tackle, and seeming equally adept dropping back. His stats were also quite exceptional, with 8 career INTs, and 112 tackles in his senior year. I think he will do better than a lot of people think, and that the 3rd round was just about the right place to pick him.
Pick #72, Brian Winters, G, New York Jets - It is somewhat embarrassing to have another Jets' selection on this list. What can I say? They appear to have had a good draft. At 6'4", 320#, with a Kangaroo Score of 1.019, and an Agility Score of 0.344, Winters is quite an interesting guy. His numbers would suggest that he will turn into quite the run blocker. He also shouldn't be a liability as a pass protector, though this might not be his area of strength. Compared to the guards who were taken in the 1st round, the computer thinks Winters could turn out just as well, if not better, so they probably got very good value with this pick.
Pick #75 Terron Armstead, OT, New Orleans Saints - Again, some people seemed to treat Terron's excellent athletic ability as something not to be taken too seriously. His 1.259 Kangaroo Score, and 0.342 Agility Score, project well to the NFL. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he ends up being the starting tackle for the Saints this year, and performs quite well. The Saints seem like an excellent landing spot for a guy from Arkansas Pine-Bluff, since Drew Brees probably helps his linemen look good, more than a guy like Blaine Gabbert would.
Pick #79 Markus Wheaton, WR, Pittsburgh Steelers - I've already included him in the list of interesting wideouts from 2013, so I'll just add that landing with Ben Roethlisberger only enhances the likelihood that his skills can be capitalized upon. The Steelers have done quite well, recently, at making the most of somewhat small but speedy receivers. His real value may not come until next year, when Emmanuel Sanders is likely to depart the team.
Pick #93 Will Davis, CB, Miami Doplhins - Again, the Dolphins take a CB that the computer likes, having already chosen Jamar Taylor. His 1.161 Ht/Spd Score, and 0.899 Agility Score, actually measure even better than Taylor's results. Still, his 2nd Gear Score of just 0.07, is a bit average. The main reason I slightly prefer Taylor is because of how they looked when watching them play. Davis seemed more nimble, but played with less violence and aggression. Between the two of them, it's hard to say who will emerge as the better player, but by picking both I think the odds are strongly in favor of at least one becoming quite excellent.
Pick #94 Brandon Williams, NT, Baltimore Ravens - If you can accept the idea that simply being an immovable blob is a valuable trait, then you will like this pick. Compared to Terrence Cody, who has been a dismal failure, this should prove to be an immediate upgrade. Williams' Kangaroo Score of 0.874, and Agility Score of -1.397 (relatively unimportant for nose tackles), should quickly push Cody out of the way who only had a -1.242 Kangaroo Score, and a -1.864 Agility Score. The Kangaroo Score is the name of the game for nose tackles, where raw explosive power is their most important trait. Why people thought that Cody would succeed is a mystery to me.
Pick #97 Zaviar Gooden, LB, Tennessee Titans - Gooden is a rather odd physical specimen. With a 0.402 Kangaroo Score, and a 1.494 Agility, while running a shocking 4.46 forty yard dash, he is clearly gifted. Still, his production in college was just good, not great. He only averaged 5 TFL in his last two years, which is a bit poor, and doesn't suggest much of a violent attacking disposition. He did have a fair number of interceptions though. So, as a coverage type linebacker, who can run people down, he is still fairly appealing for a late 3rd round pick.
Pick #102 Josh Boyce, WR, New England Patriots - He's also in the list of interesting 2013 receivers. Personally, I think he has an excellent chance to eventually become the top receiver on the team. The fact that the Patriots' other receivers aren't very good aids in this. I think there is also a reasonable probability that he will outperform Aaron Dobson (selected by the Patriots with the 59th pick). One of my favorite 'Small' receivers in the draft.
Pick #124 Trevardo Williams, DE/OLB, Houston Texans - This pick could have a huge payoff, or amount to nothing. His measurables are nothing shocking, with a 0.309 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.002 Agility Score. Combined with his smaller size, at just 241#, I would normally have to bet against him. Still, he was a very productive pass rusher, averaging 14.25 TFL in his last two years. This is one of those odd times where my gut battles with my computer. I just like watching him play, so I'm kind of hoping the computer is wrong about him.
Pick #128 Quinton Patton, WR, San Francisco 49ers - I've mentioned him before in the list of interesting 2013 wide receivers, so I'll keep this short. He may not be as flashy as some guys, but he seems very solid. A lot of people with gaudier 40 times were taken ahead of him, and are going to probably fare much worse. Maybe he won't become a #1 type receiver, but I think he should become a dependable #2. It made no sense for him to fall this far in the draft, while having bozos like Ace Sanders drafted ahead of him.
Pick #132 Devin Taylor, DE, Detroit Lions - From a physical perspective, Taylor is ideal. Unfortunately, his production never lived up to this ability. At 6'7", 266#, with a 1.346 Kangaroo Score and a 0.815 Agility Score, I would have expected him to average more than 8.5 TFL in his last two years in college, especially playing across from Jadeveon Clowney. Still, for a late 4th round pick, his ability is quite enticing, as he at least has the physical potential to be great. With the Lions loss of Cliff Avril and Lawrence Jackson, he also has a shot to get some playing time.
Pick #147 Steven Means, DE/OLB, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - I'm not really sold on Steven Means, but at this point in the draft it's not unreasonable to take some gambles. Means had a 1.408 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.075 Agility Score, while averaging a rather mediocre 7.25 TFL in his last two years. His measurables suggest he could do okay as a 4-3 DE, but his college production fails to excite me very much.
Pick #150 Terry Hawthorne, CB, Pittsburgh Steelers - He has decent size at 5'11.25", 193#, and generally seems willing to play a fairly physical game. His Ht/Spd Score of 1.026 is excellent, as is his 2nd Gear Score of 0.21, so keeping up with receivers shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, his Agility Score of -0.175, is slightly below average, and suggests he could have a harder time against nimbler receivers who run sharp routes. In the end, I still think there is decent potential value in this pick.
Pick #170 Eric Kush, C, Kansas City Chiefs - This pretty much sums up my views on this subject. He was the computer's favorite center prospect in the draft.
Pick #176 Dave Quessenberry, OT/OG, Houston Texans - At the very least, Quessenberry should provide good depth and flexibility to the Texans o-line. Athletically he shows just decent explosiveness with a 0.351 Kangaroo Score, but has an excellent Agility Score of 1.234. The numbers would suggest that he might be better suited to playing guard, though I can't rule out the possibility of him doing well at the tackle position. This seems like a rather safe pick, that should help to keep a very good offensive line well stocked.
Pick #181 Latavius Murray, RB, Oakland Raiders - I should be more of a fan of this pick, based on his measurables, but when I watch him play it just doesn't click for me. Still, I have to keep him on the radar, to see if the computer's hunch turns out to be correct. You can see how he compares athletically to the other 2013 RBs here.
Pick #189 Mike James, RB, Tampa Bay Buccaneers- I'm not going to say much here, since we'll probably never hear his name again. His measurables were pretty good, though his college production was a bit anemic, since he always split carries with other backs. I did enjoy watching him play though, and have to wonder if he could exceed people's expectations if given more of a chance. Being stuck behind Doug Martin won't help the cause though.
Pick #198 Chris Jones, Houston Texans- His Kangaroo Score of -0.027 is merely average, but his Agility Score of 1.015 is simply excellent. Combining that with his average number of tackles for a loss in his final two college years, of 16.5 per year, and you have a verrrrry intriguing player. Seems well worth investing a late 6th round pick in a player like this, and could end up rewarding the Texans quite handsomely.
Pick #207 Mike Catapano, DE/OLB, Kansas City Chiefs - Every year their seems to be an odd duck like Catapano. He's one of those guys who measures up as a potentially very interesting 3-4 OLB pass rusher, until you see the school that he came from, in this case Princeton. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about the Princeton issue, but I do have my doubts as to whether a team will give him much of a chance. He had a 1.176 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.402 Agility Score, while averaging 12.75 TFL in his last two years. Seems well suited to playing OLB in a 3-4.
Pick #216 Charles Johnson, WR, Green Bay Packers- Johnson is probably on of the most physically gifted receivers in the whole draft class, and fits the mold of a conventional high end #1 receiver quite well. His production at Grand Valley State was also quite good, so to some extent he lived up to his physical gifts. Still, that is Grand Valley State, so it's not surprising that teams were nervous about selecting him. Personally, I think this was a steal for the Packers, and though there is some risk, the potential reward is enormous. I've mentioned him previously among the interesting wideouts of 2013, so you can see some comparisons to him in that post. Why people let him fall this far, while taking the likely overrated Brian Quick (from the similarly goofy Appalachian State)in the second round of the 2012 draft, makes no sense.
Pick #223 Nicholas Williams, DT, Pittsburgh Steelers- At this point in the draft, I'm just happy if a player has some sort of potential. Williams production in college was merely average (averaging 5.75 TFL in his final two years) , but his Kangaroo Score of 1.069 suggests he has some explosive power, and his Agility Score of 0.141 is at least in the average range. It's a low risk, potentially decent reward type of pick.
Pick #235 Steve Beauharnais, LB, New England Patriots- I'm actually a bit of a fan of this player. With a 0.899 Agility Score, and a -0.737 Kangaroo Score, he actually struck me as a reasonable prospect to play middle linebacker. He was also quite productive in his time at Rutgers. His 4.84 forty yard dash was somewhat concerning, though he improved this at his pro day to a 4.67 (if you can trust pro day results). I think this pick could provide excellent value to the Patriots.
Pick #238 Aaron Mellette, WR, Baltimore Ravens- I've already covered this subject, and my expectations aren't excessively high, but I can see the appeal of this pick. It makes more sense than how the Ravens usually pick their receivers.
Undrafted Da'Rick Rogers, WR, Buffalo Bills - Like Charles Johnson, he arguably had the best combination of physical traits, and proven college production, among the 'Big' receivers in this draft. Unlike Johnson, he had some proven success at a highly competitive college program (Tennessee). Unfortunately, people also felt he had some character issues. I had a high enough opinion of him to give him his own post.
Undrafted Eric Martin, DE/LB, New Orleans Saints - While he didn't get many opportunities at Nebraska, until his senior year, he made the most of his chances. In his last year, he had 16.5 TFL, with 8.5 sacks, and was generally quite a menace to opposing QBs. While his Kangaroo Score is only -1.094, this could be due to an odd imbalance when comparing his vertical jump to his broad jump. Based on his broad jump, his Kangaroo Score would be closer to -0.553. Though that is still well below what I am normally looking for, his Agility Score is an astounding 2.230 (the 3rd highest result I've ever seen), which suggest he could fit in amongst the high agility pass rushers. Initially, I thought someone might try to move him to MLB, where his measurables are more favorable, but it looks like the Saints might give him a real shot as a pass rusher. Considering their team's injuries, he has a legitimate shot at getting playing time.
Undrafted Paul Worrilow, LB Atlanta Falcons - I've already sung the praises of this oddball from Delaware.
Undrafted Ryan Spadola, WR, New York Jets - He's something of an oddball, coming from Lehigh University, but the computer like him a lot. Though he's a bit of a longshot, I thought he deserved his own post.
Undrafted Cody Davis, S/CB, Rams - Athletically, Davis compares favorably to some of the elite cornerbacks in the league. At 6'1", 204#, he has a Ht/Spd Score of 1.161, and an Agility Score of 0.899. So, yes, he is big, fast, and agile. He also averaged 90.5 tackles per year, in his four seasons at Texas Tech. Unfortunately, a lot of this seemed to be in clean up duty for his teammates. He also only produced 4 INTs in this time. For a guy who will cost a team nothing to sign, he is a very intriguing and highly experienced player.
Undrafted Jayson DiManche, LB, Cincinnati Bengals - This is one of those prospects where the computer isn't as intrigued as I am. At 6' 0.4", 231#, DiManche isn't exactly huge, and the computer penalizes him heavily because of this. His Kangaroo Score of -0.027, and Agility Score of 0.127, are merely average. The problem, in the eyes of the computer, is he lacks the mass to be a defensive end, and his agility would only be mediocre for a linebacker. Still, if he could maintain his explosiveness (38" vertical jump, 10'7" broad jump) while gaining some weight, the computer's opinion would improve. His 4.53 forty yard dash, was also fairly impressive. Either way, I like the guy. At Southern Illinois, he averaged 12.75 TFL in his last two years, and had 8 sacks as a senior. Beyond all of that, he was just a fun and exciting player to watch. Figuring out where to play him would seem to be the main obstacle.
Undrafted Glenn Foster, DT/DE, New Orleans Saints - In the computer's opinion, Foster is basically a somewhat shorter version of Mario Williams or J.J. Watt (6'3.5" vs. 6'7" and 6'5"), at least athletically. With a 2.305 Kangaroo score, Foster shows absolutely shocking explosiveness and power, and his Agility Score of 1.300 is almost as remarkable. Unfortunately his statistical production in college pales in comparison. While Williams and Watt averaged 19.5 and 18.25 tackles for a loss in their final two college seasons, Foster only averaged 4.75. Quite a big difference. Still, an argument could be made that coming into college as a mere 255# DT, on an incredibly bad Illinois team, hindered his progress. Playing now at 286#, he has not only filled out his frame, but is also moving to the 3-4 DE position, which might suit him better. There is vast potential here, and no real risk for the Saints.
Undrafted Nick Driskill, S, Colts - I have no idea what will become of this guy, but his stats are cartoonishly ridiculous. He deserved a post of his own, even if the odds are a bit stacked against him.
Showing posts with label analytics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analytics. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Athleticism and the offensive line
People often say that offensive linemen are the safest picks in the first round. This may be true. I was looking at a list of linemen who had been taken in the first two rounds, from 1999 to 2012, and the average player selected in this range ended up starting in about 70% of the games during their career. Player's taken in just the first round started 75% of their games. Of course, this doesn't mean that they played well. I really don't want to attempt to judge that, but they at least managed to get on the field quite a lot.
The thing that strikes me as odd about this, is that offensive linemen should be a somewhat trickier position to evaluate. Like every player the team's have their combine data to consider. Unlike other players, offensive linemen don't provide any statistical production. If teams fail at a rather high rate when drafting quarterbacks and wide receivers with high draft picks, despite having more measurable information on them, how are they apparently doing much better at drafting offensive linemen, with less information? Maybe they're not.
Isn't it possible that they are screwing up on offensive linemen, just as much as they do at other positions, but it is just harder to notice? When a receiver repeatedly drops the ball, or a quarterback throws a harebrained interception, even the most casual fan will notice. With an offensive linemen, however, it will probably take repeated and glorious failures to make the headlines. Sure, you would think that teams would notice, even if we aren't paying close attention. Unfortunately, I think we are all familiar with some of the human turnstiles certain teams continue to employ. Maybe team's just develop blind-spots for certain guys, who they clearly believed in when they got drafted, and for whom they continued to have high hopes for later success. All I'm suggesting is that maybe some of these "safe" draft picks, are safe because they are so hard to criticize. After all, how successful is a newspaper article going to be if it spends its time analyzing a lineman's technique?
I'm not claiming to have any answers, but I enjoy examining combine data, and think there might be some trends worth noting. Initially I would have thought that successful interior linemen would have shown exceptional Kangaroo Scores, as I often envision them as the more brutish and less nimble in-line blockers. I expected offensive tackles to be heavily reliant on a good agility score (from the 3-cone drill and the short shuttle). On both counts I appear to have been somewhat wrong, and the complete opposite appears to be the case.
While the Kangaroo Score probably does tell you quite a bit about a player's explosive power, it also seems to relate to their quickness. Picture an offensive tackle dropping back at the snap of the ball. Though he is moving backwards, the degree to which he does this explosively is probably going to give him an edge against high quality speed rushers. Moving forward, this same explosiveness turns them into a run blocking force. So, the Kangaroo Score comes into play. Still, with high end left tackles you do see that their agility scores come to matter significantly more than for right tackles. The average results for a tackle who makes it to a Pro Bowl or All Pro roster are a 0.721 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.233 Agility Score. For just the left tackles, it was a 0.634 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.476 Agility Score.
Interior linemen, it seems, probably wind up playing inside due their lack of explosion in comparison to tackles. Not they can't be good in this department, but it tends to be less common. The best interior linemen do seem to compensate though, with excellent agility. Perhaps this agility gives them leverage, and that becomes the source of the power that they might otherwise lack. I don't know if that is the case. It's just an idea I am kicking around. Then we come to the high end centers that tend to have shockingly good short shuttle times, somewhere in the area of one standard deviation above average. The average results for interior linemen that make it to a Pro Bowl or All Pro roster are a 0.075 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.288 Agility Score. So, yes, the interior guys tend be somewhat less dynamically athletic, but a lot of that is because they are being graded in the same group as the tackles, who just throw off the curve for everyone else.
Since I am proposing that some highly drafted players might be sticking around as starters, when perhaps they shouldn't, let's take a look at some of the generally acknowledged busts from the first two rounds of the draft.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Marcus Johnson Tackle 49, in 2005 0.208 0.074
Toniu Fonoti Guard 39, in 2002 0.863 -0.762
Adam Terry Tackle 64, in 2005 0.009 -0.324
Jason Smith Tackle 2, in 2009 -1.351 0.575
Eben Britton Tackle 39, in 2009 -0.384 -0.565
Chris Williams Tackle 14, in 2008 -0.475 -0.559
Chilo Rachal Guard 39, in 2008 0.354 -1.401
Levi Brown Tackle 5, in 2007 -0.560 -0.516
Vladimir Ducasse Tackle 61, in 2010 -0.630 -1.384 (too soon?)
For the most part, these players do seem to be showing scores that are average at best, and horrific in most cases. When you compare them to the average results for Pro Bowl players at their listed positions, they all fall rather short of the mark. There are more guys who I suspect should be considered busts, but teams keep starting them. I will throw out this idea though. If you had a quality left tackle, would you ever let him go, or trade him? Yet two teams in 2013 either did this, or attempted to do this, with these players:
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Jake Long Tackle 1, in 2008 -0.240 0.636
Branden Albert Tackle 15, in 2008 0.037 -0.423
I'm not saying that they are bad, merely that their numbers are somewhat mediocre. This might have something to do with their up and down careers. The fact that the Dolphins were supposedly in trade talks for Branden Albert, as a replacement for Jake Long, would appear to be a lateral move at best.
Once you get past the players who were taken in the first couple of rounds, where teams are heavily invested in proving they made the right pick, things become a bit more interesting. If you look at late round or undrafted players, who went on to have success, you see that the majority of them do demonstrate high levels of athletic ability. When compared to the average Pro Bowl player's results, they do quite well. This shouldn't be surprising since many of these players are the Pro Bowlers who set the standard in the first place. So, despite playing for a team that probably had relatively little faith in them, they made themselves impossible to ignore.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Jason Peters Tackle Undrafted 2.278 -0.005
Chris Myers Guard/Center 200, in 2005 0.213 1.727
Scott Wells Guard/Center 251, in 2004 0.278 1.233
Chris Kuper Guard 161, in 2006 0.172 0.640
John Sullivan Center 187, in 2008 -0.251 0.759
Carl Nicks Guard 164, in 2008 1.032 -0.072
Kyle Kosier Guard/Tackle 249, in 2002 -0.289 1.402
Matt Slauson Guard 193, in 2009 1.337 -0.425
Brian Waters Guard Undrafted 1999 -0.027 0.740
Alex Boone Tackle Undrafted 2009 0.396 0.044
Eric Heitmann Center 239, in 2002 -0.393 0.743
Yes, there are some highly drafted players with excellent numbers who have failed to live up to their potential. Alex Barron (2.317 Kangaroo Score and 0.338 Agility Score) and Winston Justice (2.368 Kangaroo Score and 1.584 Agility Score) are perfect examples of this. I'm not sure what you can do to avoid or explain that sort of situation. Some guys just don't live up to their potential. There are also undoubtedly numerous players with poor measurables who have done quite well. Still, if we take a look at two different ends of the offensive line spectrum (based on 2012 depth charts), this is what we see:
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Patriots
Nate Solder Left Tackle 17, in 2011 1.281 1.592
Logan Mankins Left Guard 32, in 2005 -0.370 1.146
Ryan Wendell Center Undrafted N/A N/A
Dan Connolly Right Guard Undrafted 0.274 0.695
Sebastian Vollmer Right Tackle 58, in 2009 1.748 1.076
Maybe this has a little something to do with how the Patriots get away with using mediocre receivers and running backs. That is a shockingly athletic line, even if we don't know what Wendell's scores would be.
Lions
Gosder Cherilus Left Tackle 17, in 2008 -0.738 0.133
Stephen Peterman Left Guard 83, in 2004 -1.245 -0.079
Dominic Raiola Center 50, in 2001 0.789 1.373
Rob Sims Right Guard 128, in 2006 0.197 0.383
Jeff Backus Right Tackle 18, in 2001 -0.646 -0.914
So, which of these offensive lines would you expect to do better?
As for the 2013 draft, I will leave the top three tackles alone for now, but I want to point out one player. People kept claiming this guy was exceptionally athletic, and I just couldn't figure out why. So it will be interesting to see how it turns out in the long run, since even if he fails it could be years before anyone admits it.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Menelik Watson Tackle 42, in 2013 -0.732 -1.589
If you're still interested in all of this nonsense, you can jump over to Athleticism and the Offensive Line part 2. In that post I compare a player's athletic measurements to their success/productivity base on their CarAV score .
The thing that strikes me as odd about this, is that offensive linemen should be a somewhat trickier position to evaluate. Like every player the team's have their combine data to consider. Unlike other players, offensive linemen don't provide any statistical production. If teams fail at a rather high rate when drafting quarterbacks and wide receivers with high draft picks, despite having more measurable information on them, how are they apparently doing much better at drafting offensive linemen, with less information? Maybe they're not.
Isn't it possible that they are screwing up on offensive linemen, just as much as they do at other positions, but it is just harder to notice? When a receiver repeatedly drops the ball, or a quarterback throws a harebrained interception, even the most casual fan will notice. With an offensive linemen, however, it will probably take repeated and glorious failures to make the headlines. Sure, you would think that teams would notice, even if we aren't paying close attention. Unfortunately, I think we are all familiar with some of the human turnstiles certain teams continue to employ. Maybe team's just develop blind-spots for certain guys, who they clearly believed in when they got drafted, and for whom they continued to have high hopes for later success. All I'm suggesting is that maybe some of these "safe" draft picks, are safe because they are so hard to criticize. After all, how successful is a newspaper article going to be if it spends its time analyzing a lineman's technique?
I'm not claiming to have any answers, but I enjoy examining combine data, and think there might be some trends worth noting. Initially I would have thought that successful interior linemen would have shown exceptional Kangaroo Scores, as I often envision them as the more brutish and less nimble in-line blockers. I expected offensive tackles to be heavily reliant on a good agility score (from the 3-cone drill and the short shuttle). On both counts I appear to have been somewhat wrong, and the complete opposite appears to be the case.
While the Kangaroo Score probably does tell you quite a bit about a player's explosive power, it also seems to relate to their quickness. Picture an offensive tackle dropping back at the snap of the ball. Though he is moving backwards, the degree to which he does this explosively is probably going to give him an edge against high quality speed rushers. Moving forward, this same explosiveness turns them into a run blocking force. So, the Kangaroo Score comes into play. Still, with high end left tackles you do see that their agility scores come to matter significantly more than for right tackles. The average results for a tackle who makes it to a Pro Bowl or All Pro roster are a 0.721 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.233 Agility Score. For just the left tackles, it was a 0.634 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.476 Agility Score.
Interior linemen, it seems, probably wind up playing inside due their lack of explosion in comparison to tackles. Not they can't be good in this department, but it tends to be less common. The best interior linemen do seem to compensate though, with excellent agility. Perhaps this agility gives them leverage, and that becomes the source of the power that they might otherwise lack. I don't know if that is the case. It's just an idea I am kicking around. Then we come to the high end centers that tend to have shockingly good short shuttle times, somewhere in the area of one standard deviation above average. The average results for interior linemen that make it to a Pro Bowl or All Pro roster are a 0.075 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.288 Agility Score. So, yes, the interior guys tend be somewhat less dynamically athletic, but a lot of that is because they are being graded in the same group as the tackles, who just throw off the curve for everyone else.
Since I am proposing that some highly drafted players might be sticking around as starters, when perhaps they shouldn't, let's take a look at some of the generally acknowledged busts from the first two rounds of the draft.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Marcus Johnson Tackle 49, in 2005 0.208 0.074
Toniu Fonoti Guard 39, in 2002 0.863 -0.762
Adam Terry Tackle 64, in 2005 0.009 -0.324
Jason Smith Tackle 2, in 2009 -1.351 0.575
Eben Britton Tackle 39, in 2009 -0.384 -0.565
Chris Williams Tackle 14, in 2008 -0.475 -0.559
Chilo Rachal Guard 39, in 2008 0.354 -1.401
Levi Brown Tackle 5, in 2007 -0.560 -0.516
Vladimir Ducasse Tackle 61, in 2010 -0.630 -1.384 (too soon?)
For the most part, these players do seem to be showing scores that are average at best, and horrific in most cases. When you compare them to the average results for Pro Bowl players at their listed positions, they all fall rather short of the mark. There are more guys who I suspect should be considered busts, but teams keep starting them. I will throw out this idea though. If you had a quality left tackle, would you ever let him go, or trade him? Yet two teams in 2013 either did this, or attempted to do this, with these players:
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Jake Long Tackle 1, in 2008 -0.240 0.636
Branden Albert Tackle 15, in 2008 0.037 -0.423
I'm not saying that they are bad, merely that their numbers are somewhat mediocre. This might have something to do with their up and down careers. The fact that the Dolphins were supposedly in trade talks for Branden Albert, as a replacement for Jake Long, would appear to be a lateral move at best.
Once you get past the players who were taken in the first couple of rounds, where teams are heavily invested in proving they made the right pick, things become a bit more interesting. If you look at late round or undrafted players, who went on to have success, you see that the majority of them do demonstrate high levels of athletic ability. When compared to the average Pro Bowl player's results, they do quite well. This shouldn't be surprising since many of these players are the Pro Bowlers who set the standard in the first place. So, despite playing for a team that probably had relatively little faith in them, they made themselves impossible to ignore.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Jason Peters Tackle Undrafted 2.278 -0.005
Chris Myers Guard/Center 200, in 2005 0.213 1.727
Scott Wells Guard/Center 251, in 2004 0.278 1.233
Chris Kuper Guard 161, in 2006 0.172 0.640
John Sullivan Center 187, in 2008 -0.251 0.759
Carl Nicks Guard 164, in 2008 1.032 -0.072
Kyle Kosier Guard/Tackle 249, in 2002 -0.289 1.402
Matt Slauson Guard 193, in 2009 1.337 -0.425
Brian Waters Guard Undrafted 1999 -0.027 0.740
Alex Boone Tackle Undrafted 2009 0.396 0.044
Eric Heitmann Center 239, in 2002 -0.393 0.743
Yes, there are some highly drafted players with excellent numbers who have failed to live up to their potential. Alex Barron (2.317 Kangaroo Score and 0.338 Agility Score) and Winston Justice (2.368 Kangaroo Score and 1.584 Agility Score) are perfect examples of this. I'm not sure what you can do to avoid or explain that sort of situation. Some guys just don't live up to their potential. There are also undoubtedly numerous players with poor measurables who have done quite well. Still, if we take a look at two different ends of the offensive line spectrum (based on 2012 depth charts), this is what we see:
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Patriots
Nate Solder Left Tackle 17, in 2011 1.281 1.592
Logan Mankins Left Guard 32, in 2005 -0.370 1.146
Ryan Wendell Center Undrafted N/A N/A
Dan Connolly Right Guard Undrafted 0.274 0.695
Sebastian Vollmer Right Tackle 58, in 2009 1.748 1.076
Maybe this has a little something to do with how the Patriots get away with using mediocre receivers and running backs. That is a shockingly athletic line, even if we don't know what Wendell's scores would be.
Lions
Gosder Cherilus Left Tackle 17, in 2008 -0.738 0.133
Stephen Peterman Left Guard 83, in 2004 -1.245 -0.079
Dominic Raiola Center 50, in 2001 0.789 1.373
Rob Sims Right Guard 128, in 2006 0.197 0.383
Jeff Backus Right Tackle 18, in 2001 -0.646 -0.914
So, which of these offensive lines would you expect to do better?
As for the 2013 draft, I will leave the top three tackles alone for now, but I want to point out one player. People kept claiming this guy was exceptionally athletic, and I just couldn't figure out why. So it will be interesting to see how it turns out in the long run, since even if he fails it could be years before anyone admits it.
Player Position Pick # Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Menelik Watson Tackle 42, in 2013 -0.732 -1.589
If you're still interested in all of this nonsense, you can jump over to Athleticism and the Offensive Line part 2. In that post I compare a player's athletic measurements to their success/productivity base on their CarAV score .
Friday, May 3, 2013
Why people love statistical outliers
Football is a sport. Sports are played by athletes (unless it is bowling). The NFL Combine puts people through different tests of athletic ability. Then at the end of this testing, we gather together and say "Hey, you know that short slow guy? He's the one I want. The guy has moxie." Then a year or two later, when our man of determination and heart has been run off to play in the CFL, we try again. This time, we'll get it right. That other guy? Hell, he didn't have half the heart this new guy has. This new guy really brings his lunch pail to work (really, why the fuck do we say this?). Yup, it's going to be different this year.
Sure, being a hard worker or a guy with great character is a good thing. Do you think you can identify this trait? Was Randy Moss a hard worker? Or what about Terrell Owen's character? "Bah", you say,"They put up great stats, but I wouldn't want those cancerous guys on my team." Sure, sure. I get it. It's a team sport. It takes all 53 guys to win not just a couple guys who put up pretty stats. Okay then, so how are we going to identify these guys with character, that everyone seems to like so much? Do you have a Moxie-Meter hidden in your basement? A Lunch-Pail-O-Graph device that we can attach to their skull with electrodes, to measure this essential gritty determination? Even a Balboa-gauge would do in a pinch, if you have one on hand.
I suspect that no matter what team you root for, you have been in this position at least once. Your team has selected a wide receiver with a fairly high draft pick, only to find out that the guy just really can't catch the ball very well (Troy Williamson, Travis Taylor, etc.). So, somehow we are supposed to believe that NFL GMs can get an accurate read on a player's psyche, level of motivation, commitment, or whatever, when they can't even tell if a guy can catch. (which would seem like a fairly obvious trait to pay attention to, but perhaps gets overlooked while they are busy reading their DSM to analyze the player's psychological profile). Sure, I'm certain that most of these team's scouts, who were generally just failed former football players themselves, have keen analytical minds, highly trained and attuned to detect the faintest whiff of moxie in the air. Hell, that is probably why they stopped playing football in the first place. You don't want to damage a mind like that, with blows to the head.
Now, lets say we were working at NASA, and were looking to hire a new guy. We've got applications from all the best and brightest, from the finest universities in the land. If I turned to you and said, "You know what Bob? This guy here is the one we want. Sure, on paper he doesn't look so great. In fact he appears to be brain damaged. But you see, Bob, he just doesn't test well. I've talked to this guy and he's a real crackerjack. Sharp as a tack, I tell ya'. He's the guy we want to plan our mission to Mars." Well, best case scenario you would be laughed at. Worst case? Well, I suppose that would involve having the space shuttle go off course, and instead of heading to Mars, crashing into the White House (maybe I can pitch this idea to Michael Bay).
Yes, test results should matter to you. I know, we all hate to feel as if we are confined or trapped by some measurement, whether it is I.Q., 40 yard dash time, or whatever. We like to look in the mirror and see past that receding hairline, growing paunch, and strange rash in our armpit that just won't go away, to see the vigorous and brilliant man we know that we really are. Women just can't resist us. Oh, they play coy, but they notice us. As for other men, they tremble before our intimidating masculinity. No stupid number is going to tell us what we are, and it shouldn't do that to any man. This is America for god's sake, and no commie numbers are going to change that. USA! USA! USA!
So, basically, what I am trying to say is we tend to be morons. We're not all beautiful little snowflakes. Potatoes are all unique too, though nobody ever seems to compare themselves to one. We're not all just a step away from having our greatness discovered. We're not all going to be that outlier, who is going to defy expectations, but we still root for it to happen to someone. Somewhere inside us, we know that some guys are just better, more talented, but we don't have to like it.
Then we see a receiver run a 4.7 second forty yard dash. We pause. We think about all the great things that his coaches said about him. How his teammates would follow him through the gates of hell. He was the star of the Rose Bowl for Christ's sake! It's those damned commie numbers, coming to get us again! Anquan, he'll save us! Anquan Boldin ran a 4.72 forty yard dash, and things turned out great for him. He was gritty and tough wasn't he? That's all you need, man. Just give me some gritty tough guy, and you can keep those commie numbers of yours. Hell, look at Wes Welker. That sumbitch was 5'8" and running a 4.65 forty. Takes a lot of grit to be small and slow, doesn't it?
Sure those guys are great. They are anomalies. Outliers. Basically, they are like a cancerous tumor spreading through an otherwise healthy statistical analysis. They show up in your spreadsheet. They scare you a bit. You can't figure out what to do with them, or how to make them go away. So you learn to just accept them for what they are, a pain in your statistical ass (yes, statistical ass cancer). Though it is reasonable to find them oddly fascinating, it doesn't mean you should spend your life searching for them. That would inevitably prove rather depressing, sort of like a daily colonoscopy.
People might say that Wes Welker was underrated, or that he should have been drafted higher (actually he wasn't drafted at all). How highly should you draft a small slow wide receiver, with good but not exactly shocking college production (especially when they come from Texas Tech where everybody accumulates decent stats)? Maybe good old Wes was just hungover at the combine? Maybe Anquan didn't have his bran muffin that morning, allowing him to drop the ballast needed to increase his vertical jump? Okay, fine.
If you want to go looking for the next Wes Welker or Anquan Boldin, that's cool. I admire the quest that you are setting for yourself. I do think there are probably some guys out there who have a good eye for drafting talent, and maybe they will spot the next big thing. Still, at least with receivers (though this applies everywhere else too), most teams haven't shown that they are employing these savants in their scouting department. So, you can try to find the next guy who is going to defy all the odds, and over the next ten years you might find one. If you do manage to turn one up, I'd be the first to congratulate you. But can you do it again? If some scout out there can do that, say 60-70% of the time, then I would be very intrigued. If a team can't do this, then that underdog draft pick starts to look like a fluke, just blind luck. Or perhaps, they did have a brief moment of insight, where their internal Moxie-Meter went off, only to have it again go on the fritz for the following decade. I certainly can't rule that out.
Or, you can embrace what seems to be the most sensible solution, that those other guys, the bigger faster stronger ones who statistically pummeled their opponents all through college, might just be a better bet. It's just putting the odds in your favor. Even if they seem like assholes. Even if they seem unmotivated. Even if they lack moxie. Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Marques Colston, now those are guys who you can rightfully justify searching for. While people might treat them as if they were the same sort of underdogs as Wes Welker, they really aren't. The numbers were there. The measurables and statistics existed. Teams just chose not to pay attention. Maybe they lacked grit?
Sure, being a hard worker or a guy with great character is a good thing. Do you think you can identify this trait? Was Randy Moss a hard worker? Or what about Terrell Owen's character? "Bah", you say,"They put up great stats, but I wouldn't want those cancerous guys on my team." Sure, sure. I get it. It's a team sport. It takes all 53 guys to win not just a couple guys who put up pretty stats. Okay then, so how are we going to identify these guys with character, that everyone seems to like so much? Do you have a Moxie-Meter hidden in your basement? A Lunch-Pail-O-Graph device that we can attach to their skull with electrodes, to measure this essential gritty determination? Even a Balboa-gauge would do in a pinch, if you have one on hand.
I suspect that no matter what team you root for, you have been in this position at least once. Your team has selected a wide receiver with a fairly high draft pick, only to find out that the guy just really can't catch the ball very well (Troy Williamson, Travis Taylor, etc.). So, somehow we are supposed to believe that NFL GMs can get an accurate read on a player's psyche, level of motivation, commitment, or whatever, when they can't even tell if a guy can catch. (which would seem like a fairly obvious trait to pay attention to, but perhaps gets overlooked while they are busy reading their DSM to analyze the player's psychological profile). Sure, I'm certain that most of these team's scouts, who were generally just failed former football players themselves, have keen analytical minds, highly trained and attuned to detect the faintest whiff of moxie in the air. Hell, that is probably why they stopped playing football in the first place. You don't want to damage a mind like that, with blows to the head.
Now, lets say we were working at NASA, and were looking to hire a new guy. We've got applications from all the best and brightest, from the finest universities in the land. If I turned to you and said, "You know what Bob? This guy here is the one we want. Sure, on paper he doesn't look so great. In fact he appears to be brain damaged. But you see, Bob, he just doesn't test well. I've talked to this guy and he's a real crackerjack. Sharp as a tack, I tell ya'. He's the guy we want to plan our mission to Mars." Well, best case scenario you would be laughed at. Worst case? Well, I suppose that would involve having the space shuttle go off course, and instead of heading to Mars, crashing into the White House (maybe I can pitch this idea to Michael Bay).
Yes, test results should matter to you. I know, we all hate to feel as if we are confined or trapped by some measurement, whether it is I.Q., 40 yard dash time, or whatever. We like to look in the mirror and see past that receding hairline, growing paunch, and strange rash in our armpit that just won't go away, to see the vigorous and brilliant man we know that we really are. Women just can't resist us. Oh, they play coy, but they notice us. As for other men, they tremble before our intimidating masculinity. No stupid number is going to tell us what we are, and it shouldn't do that to any man. This is America for god's sake, and no commie numbers are going to change that. USA! USA! USA!
So, basically, what I am trying to say is we tend to be morons. We're not all beautiful little snowflakes. Potatoes are all unique too, though nobody ever seems to compare themselves to one. We're not all just a step away from having our greatness discovered. We're not all going to be that outlier, who is going to defy expectations, but we still root for it to happen to someone. Somewhere inside us, we know that some guys are just better, more talented, but we don't have to like it.
Then we see a receiver run a 4.7 second forty yard dash. We pause. We think about all the great things that his coaches said about him. How his teammates would follow him through the gates of hell. He was the star of the Rose Bowl for Christ's sake! It's those damned commie numbers, coming to get us again! Anquan, he'll save us! Anquan Boldin ran a 4.72 forty yard dash, and things turned out great for him. He was gritty and tough wasn't he? That's all you need, man. Just give me some gritty tough guy, and you can keep those commie numbers of yours. Hell, look at Wes Welker. That sumbitch was 5'8" and running a 4.65 forty. Takes a lot of grit to be small and slow, doesn't it?
Sure those guys are great. They are anomalies. Outliers. Basically, they are like a cancerous tumor spreading through an otherwise healthy statistical analysis. They show up in your spreadsheet. They scare you a bit. You can't figure out what to do with them, or how to make them go away. So you learn to just accept them for what they are, a pain in your statistical ass (yes, statistical ass cancer). Though it is reasonable to find them oddly fascinating, it doesn't mean you should spend your life searching for them. That would inevitably prove rather depressing, sort of like a daily colonoscopy.
People might say that Wes Welker was underrated, or that he should have been drafted higher (actually he wasn't drafted at all). How highly should you draft a small slow wide receiver, with good but not exactly shocking college production (especially when they come from Texas Tech where everybody accumulates decent stats)? Maybe good old Wes was just hungover at the combine? Maybe Anquan didn't have his bran muffin that morning, allowing him to drop the ballast needed to increase his vertical jump? Okay, fine.
If you want to go looking for the next Wes Welker or Anquan Boldin, that's cool. I admire the quest that you are setting for yourself. I do think there are probably some guys out there who have a good eye for drafting talent, and maybe they will spot the next big thing. Still, at least with receivers (though this applies everywhere else too), most teams haven't shown that they are employing these savants in their scouting department. So, you can try to find the next guy who is going to defy all the odds, and over the next ten years you might find one. If you do manage to turn one up, I'd be the first to congratulate you. But can you do it again? If some scout out there can do that, say 60-70% of the time, then I would be very intrigued. If a team can't do this, then that underdog draft pick starts to look like a fluke, just blind luck. Or perhaps, they did have a brief moment of insight, where their internal Moxie-Meter went off, only to have it again go on the fritz for the following decade. I certainly can't rule that out.
Or, you can embrace what seems to be the most sensible solution, that those other guys, the bigger faster stronger ones who statistically pummeled their opponents all through college, might just be a better bet. It's just putting the odds in your favor. Even if they seem like assholes. Even if they seem unmotivated. Even if they lack moxie. Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Marques Colston, now those are guys who you can rightfully justify searching for. While people might treat them as if they were the same sort of underdogs as Wes Welker, they really aren't. The numbers were there. The measurables and statistics existed. Teams just chose not to pay attention. Maybe they lacked grit?
Thursday, May 2, 2013
A statistical approach to drafting wide receivers
I thought I would post up a rather simplified example of what would happen if you asked a spreadsheet to analyze wide receiver prospects in the NFL Draft. This isn't exactly how I go about doing things, but is close enough to give some idea as to how it can improve a team's odds of making a decent pick. For this brief look, I will show what the computer thought of the draft classes from 2004 to 2012.
Player's will be given a score based in equal parts on their combine data, and their production in college. Their Stat Score makes a simple adjustment to their raw college stats to normalize things for the purpose of comparing guys who played in different offenses. The Stat Score is fairly similar to Shawn Siegele's Dominator Rating, though I use their college team's total offense rather than just their passing offense. I'm not claiming that this is an improvement over the Dominator Rating, it probably isn't, it is just the way I have historically done things. The other half of their score will be the Athletic Score, which will come from their combine results.
Since there is obviously going to be a difference between how a guy like DeSean Jackson succeeds, compared to a player like Calvin Johnson, players will be divided into two groups. The "Big" group will consist of player's over 200 pounds, and their Athletic Score will put more of an emphasis on their Kangaroo Score, though the other combine drills will still be a factor. These player's are expected to succeed by physically overpowering their opponent. The "Small" group will consist of player's under 210 pounds, and their Athletic Score will put more of an emphasis their agility score (based on the short shuttle and 3-cone drill), as well as raw speed. Basically, if you can't overpower your opponent, you want to be able to evade them. Player's who are between 200 and 210 pounds will be graded on both scales to see where they fit best.
One issue that occurs, is you sometimes have a player who so thoroughly dominates either his Athletic Score or his Stat Score, that it can bury a failure somewhere else. Take Troy Edwards, the 13th pick of the 1999 draft as an example. His Stat Score was 2.160 standard deviations above average, which is shockingly good. Unfortunately his Athletic Score was -0.630 standard deviations below average. Since I am looking for people who have a physical advantage over their opponent, and a history of meeting this potential, the computer will cut any prospect from consideration who wasn't at least average in both areas.
There is an additional issue. I'm still not sure whether to adjust the Stat Score for players who competed at the Division II or III level. Making such an adjustment would be easy, but I just haven't decided yet how much of a deduction to make.
So, here are the top 5 results from each year, including their final score, where they were selected, and whether they were graded as a Big or Small receiver:
2012
Derek Carrier Undrafted 1.606 Big
Michael Floyd pick #13 0.717 Big
Marvin McNutt pick #194 0.660 Big
Justin Blackmon pick #5 0.557 Big
Player's will be given a score based in equal parts on their combine data, and their production in college. Their Stat Score makes a simple adjustment to their raw college stats to normalize things for the purpose of comparing guys who played in different offenses. The Stat Score is fairly similar to Shawn Siegele's Dominator Rating, though I use their college team's total offense rather than just their passing offense. I'm not claiming that this is an improvement over the Dominator Rating, it probably isn't, it is just the way I have historically done things. The other half of their score will be the Athletic Score, which will come from their combine results.
Since there is obviously going to be a difference between how a guy like DeSean Jackson succeeds, compared to a player like Calvin Johnson, players will be divided into two groups. The "Big" group will consist of player's over 200 pounds, and their Athletic Score will put more of an emphasis on their Kangaroo Score, though the other combine drills will still be a factor. These player's are expected to succeed by physically overpowering their opponent. The "Small" group will consist of player's under 210 pounds, and their Athletic Score will put more of an emphasis their agility score (based on the short shuttle and 3-cone drill), as well as raw speed. Basically, if you can't overpower your opponent, you want to be able to evade them. Player's who are between 200 and 210 pounds will be graded on both scales to see where they fit best.
One issue that occurs, is you sometimes have a player who so thoroughly dominates either his Athletic Score or his Stat Score, that it can bury a failure somewhere else. Take Troy Edwards, the 13th pick of the 1999 draft as an example. His Stat Score was 2.160 standard deviations above average, which is shockingly good. Unfortunately his Athletic Score was -0.630 standard deviations below average. Since I am looking for people who have a physical advantage over their opponent, and a history of meeting this potential, the computer will cut any prospect from consideration who wasn't at least average in both areas.
There is an additional issue. I'm still not sure whether to adjust the Stat Score for players who competed at the Division II or III level. Making such an adjustment would be easy, but I just haven't decided yet how much of a deduction to make.
So, here are the top 5 results from each year, including their final score, where they were selected, and whether they were graded as a Big or Small receiver:
2012
Derek Carrier Undrafted 1.606 Big
Michael Floyd pick #13 0.717 Big
Marvin McNutt pick #194 0.660 Big
Justin Blackmon pick #5 0.557 Big
Alshon Jeffrey pick #45
0.483 Big
Derek Carrier is a bit of an oddball, coming from tiny Beloit College. It will be interesting to see if he becomes anything , or if I will have to start creating a penalty for players from such low levels of competition.
2011
Jonathan Baldwin
pick #26 1.098 Big Next stop, Bustville!
Julio Jones pick #6 0.814 Big
Torrey Smith pick #58 0.643 Small
Stephen Burton
pick #236 0.513 Big
Cecil Shorts pick #114
0.484 Small
2010
Dez Bryant pick #24 0.998
Big
Mike Williams pick #101
0.690 Big
Victor Cruz
Undrafted 0.685 Big or 0.590 Small(listing both because it’s
interesting to me)
Andre Roberts pick #88
0.640 Small
Emmanuel Sanders pick #82
0.588 Small
There was no combine data for Eric Decker, Demaryius Thomas, or
Danario Alexander. If there had been I suspect they would have made the list.
2009
Kenny Britt pick #30 0.807
Big
Hakeem Nicks pick #29
0.720 Big
Ramses Barden pick #85 0.705 Big
Mike Thomas pick #107
0.503 Small
Mike Wallace pick #84 0.315 Small
No combine for Michael Crabtree
2008
James Hardy pick #41
0.413 Big Ooops! That didn't turn out well.
Jordy Nelson pick #36 0.411
Big
Pierre Garcon pick #205 0.388
Big
Donnie Avery pick #33
0.363 Small
Earl Bennett pick #70
0.169 Small
This was just a terrible year for receivers.
2007
Calvin Johnson
pick #2 1.881 Big
Robert Meachem
pick #27 0.661 Big One of the more disappointing players.
Mike Sims-Walker
pick #79 0.490 Big
Dwayne Bowe pick #23 0.435 Big
Dwayne Bowe pick #23 0.435 Big
Laurent Robinson
pick #75 0.381 Big
2006
Miles Austin Undrafted
0.851 Big
Greg Jennings pick #52
0.750 Small
Brandon Marshall
pick #119 0.640 Big
Marques Colston
pick #252 0.608 Big
Derek Hagan pick #82 0.599
Big
A banner year for the computer. Fortunately the computer is a humble guy, and
doesn’t make much fuss about it.
2005
Vincent Jackson pick
#61 2.019 Big
Dante Ridgeway pick #192
0.990 Big Not one of the computer’s finer moments
Mike Williams pick #10
0.988 (now known as “the fat Mike Williams”) Big
Roddy White pick #27 0.815
Small
Braylon Edwards pick #3 0.658
Big
That’s not a typo. Vincent Jackson is indeed 2 standard
deviations above average.
2004
Larry Fitzgerald pick #3
1.014 Big
Lee Evans pick #13 0.855
Small
Reggie Williams pick #9 0.797
Big
Rashaun Woods pick #30 0.605
Big Honestly, I'm not sure what happened with this guy.
Jerricho Cotchery pick #108 0.588
Big
As I said before, this is just a very basic way of doing things, and not what I would really recommend. Trying to boil things down to one overall score just doesn't work as well as looking over a broader set of smaller scores. Using a broader set of data lets you get more of a sense as to how balanced a player is in a wide range of areas.
Still, while the computer does make some mistakes here (Jon Baldwin, Mike "The fat one" Williams, James Hardy, etc.) many of these mistakes are no worse than what actual NFL teams did. The spreadsheet also scored major coups in selecting players like Victor Cruz, Marques Colston, Brandon Marshall, Miles Austin, and Mike "Not the fat one" Williams, as well as others, all in the later rounds or undrafted. Overall, out of the 40 listed prospects (not counting the 2012 draft class, since it is too early for that), 67.5% arguably became successes according to my odd definition of the term. That is in comparison to a overall average success rate of 24.39% for all drafted receivers, or a 22.5% median league-wide success rate for individual NFL teams. Some players like Emmanuel Sanders also appear poised to enter the "success" list as their playing time increases, but I'll leave that alone for now.
I'm not saying that players should be graded in such a simple manner. I'm just saying that even a method this ridiculously simple should outperform most NFL GMs, and that a more sophisticated version, along with some limited film study, should produce excellent results. I'll get into exploring some of the ways to refine things even further here.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Wide Receiver Success Rate
I was fiddling around with my wide receiver spreadsheets, trying to tweak my formulas, and I thought it would be interesting to see how NFL teams compare to one another when it comes to making selections at this position. This is intended to just get some vague idea as to how often teams actually manage to correctly identify quality wide receiver prospects, though it has some limitations.
First of all, this will include players selected between 2004 and 2012. Players taken in the last few years are probably still developing, and could possibly improve the historical grade I will assign to a team. For my purposes though, it really doesn't matter. I'm not trying to paint any team as being incompetent, I'm just trying to get a glimpse of the overall picture.
The next issue is coming up with a way of defining what we will call a "success". I generally set the bar at 35 yards per game played (not per game started). This would work out to a player that averages 560 yards per year. This isn't an exceptional amount of production, but is significantly more than most draft prospects will ever produce. At this level, a player is at the very least rosterable, and contributing to a reasonable degree. The reason I chose 35 yards as the cutoff point, was that it seemed to be the average result for wide receivers who were at least given significant enough playing time to prove themselves, one way or the other. I'm sure somebody will want to argue about this, and suggest a better method of defining what "average" is, so feel free to suggest something better. I'm just shooting for simplicity.
I'll explore wide receivers in more depth later, but for now here is how things worked out. Beside each team's name I will give the number of wideouts they have drafted since 2004, as well as what percentage of them managed to at least reach my magical line of mediocrity. Receivers who were undrafted, such as Victor Cruz or Miles Austin, aren't included in this examination. Teams only get credit for players they actually used a draft pick on.
Team # of Wideouts Taken Overall Success Rate
49ers 13 15.38%
Bears 9 33.33%
Bengals 15 13.33%
Bills 7 28.57%
Broncos 8 50%
Browns 10 30%
Buccaneers 10 10%
Cardinals 7 57.14%
Chargers 5 20%
Chiefs 12 8.33%
Colts 6 50%
Cowboys 6 33%
Dolphins 8 12.5%
Eagles 7 57.14%
Falcons 8 50%
Giants 8 38.57%
Jaguars 11 36.36%
Jets 8 28.57%
Lions 8 37.5%
Packers 9 44.44%
Panthers 8 12.5%
Patriots 7 0%
Raiders 13 15.38%
Rams 11 18.18%
Ravens 12 16.66%
Redskins 7 14.28%
Saints 7 28.57%
Seahawks 7 0%
Steelers 9 33.33%
Texans 8 0%
Titans 13 15.38%
Vikings 10 20%
The league-wide median success rate would be 22.5%. From 2004 to 2012, 287 wide receivers have been drafted, and 70 (24.39%) of them managed to become at least average by my definition of the word. For teams like the Broncos, Cardinals, Colts, Eagles, Falcons, and Packers, congratulations, you are probably doing something right (and having a good quarterback might be biggest factor). For everybody else, well, you might as well be blindly pulling names out of a hat.
The average NFL team has spent about 9 draft picks on the wide receiver position during this time frame. If your team has used more picks than this, while having a success rate below 24.39%, it would seem that there are two possibilities that could explain what is going wrong. They are either mind bogglingly unlucky, or they are are actively pursuing bozos. A purge of the scouting department would seem to be in order, as a computer spreadsheet of combine data and college stats would probably do a better job.
Update: 8/1/13 - You can also go to the post Wide Receiver Success Rate part 2, to see what happens when we raise the bar to 45 yards per game. In this post, I list who these receivers are, and get into what traits they all might all have in common.
First of all, this will include players selected between 2004 and 2012. Players taken in the last few years are probably still developing, and could possibly improve the historical grade I will assign to a team. For my purposes though, it really doesn't matter. I'm not trying to paint any team as being incompetent, I'm just trying to get a glimpse of the overall picture.
The next issue is coming up with a way of defining what we will call a "success". I generally set the bar at 35 yards per game played (not per game started). This would work out to a player that averages 560 yards per year. This isn't an exceptional amount of production, but is significantly more than most draft prospects will ever produce. At this level, a player is at the very least rosterable, and contributing to a reasonable degree. The reason I chose 35 yards as the cutoff point, was that it seemed to be the average result for wide receivers who were at least given significant enough playing time to prove themselves, one way or the other. I'm sure somebody will want to argue about this, and suggest a better method of defining what "average" is, so feel free to suggest something better. I'm just shooting for simplicity.
I'll explore wide receivers in more depth later, but for now here is how things worked out. Beside each team's name I will give the number of wideouts they have drafted since 2004, as well as what percentage of them managed to at least reach my magical line of mediocrity. Receivers who were undrafted, such as Victor Cruz or Miles Austin, aren't included in this examination. Teams only get credit for players they actually used a draft pick on.
Team # of Wideouts Taken Overall Success Rate
49ers 13 15.38%
Bears 9 33.33%
Bengals 15 13.33%
Bills 7 28.57%
Broncos 8 50%
Browns 10 30%
Buccaneers 10 10%
Cardinals 7 57.14%
Chargers 5 20%
Chiefs 12 8.33%
Colts 6 50%
Cowboys 6 33%
Dolphins 8 12.5%
Eagles 7 57.14%
Falcons 8 50%
Giants 8 38.57%
Jaguars 11 36.36%
Jets 8 28.57%
Lions 8 37.5%
Packers 9 44.44%
Panthers 8 12.5%
Patriots 7 0%
Raiders 13 15.38%
Rams 11 18.18%
Ravens 12 16.66%
Redskins 7 14.28%
Saints 7 28.57%
Seahawks 7 0%
Steelers 9 33.33%
Texans 8 0%
Titans 13 15.38%
Vikings 10 20%
The league-wide median success rate would be 22.5%. From 2004 to 2012, 287 wide receivers have been drafted, and 70 (24.39%) of them managed to become at least average by my definition of the word. For teams like the Broncos, Cardinals, Colts, Eagles, Falcons, and Packers, congratulations, you are probably doing something right (and having a good quarterback might be biggest factor). For everybody else, well, you might as well be blindly pulling names out of a hat.
The average NFL team has spent about 9 draft picks on the wide receiver position during this time frame. If your team has used more picks than this, while having a success rate below 24.39%, it would seem that there are two possibilities that could explain what is going wrong. They are either mind bogglingly unlucky, or they are are actively pursuing bozos. A purge of the scouting department would seem to be in order, as a computer spreadsheet of combine data and college stats would probably do a better job.
Update: 8/1/13 - You can also go to the post Wide Receiver Success Rate part 2, to see what happens when we raise the bar to 45 yards per game. In this post, I list who these receivers are, and get into what traits they all might all have in common.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Kangaroo Score
The Kangaroo Score was something I came up with while trying to identify NFL Draft prospects that could become successful pass rushers. I have seen other people who have used a similar method, but mine still has the honor of having the goofiest name. So, I win on that point.
The score largely comes from a prospect's vertical jump and their broad jump. Of course, not all jumps are equal. A player weighing 200 pounds with a 36 inch vertical jump, simply isn't showing the same power or explosiveness as a 250 pound guy with the same jump. My solution was to multiply a players weight by their jump, find what the average result was, and the see how many standard deviations a player's score was from that average. It's just a simple way of gauging a player's lower body power. We can extrapolate from this a simple mass times velocity equals force view of things, with the jump being used as the measure of velocity, to estimate the amount of force a player could generate against his opponent. So, basically, I look at players as human projectiles.
For some positions, like defensive tackle, this could be seen as a measure of the power that they are generating when the ball is snapped.. It's sort a general test of an athlete's quick twitch muscles, and their overall explosiveness. For defensive tackles this measurement alone is more than adequate to identify prospects, but I'll generally refine things a bit further. As you move outwards from the defensive tackle, and a player's mass decreases from defensive ends to linebackers, to safeties, and finally to cornerbacks, you start to see agility become more of a factor. The way I see it, a player (at any position, but in this case a pass rusher), could either explode through or past his opponent, or try to evade/work around them. So, as their mass decreases it becomes more important that the player's score in the agility drills (short shuttle and 3-cone)go up. Ideally a player would do well in all these categories, but that is somewhat unusual. Continuing with the human projectile idea, you could compare a guy with a high Kangaroo score to a depleted uranium round fired from a tank, while a guy who also has a good agility score is more like a heat seeking missile. Hmm, this human projectile idea is sounding more and more idiotic with every word I type.
Sticking with defensive tackles for a minute, let me add this. While this explosiveness might be all that you need for a nose tackle, who can satisfy a team's expectations by simply being fat and immovable, the more their agility score goes up the more likely they are to create at least some pressure on the quarterback.
Here are some noteworthy defensive tackles and what their scores look like:
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Haloti Ngata 2.043 -0.645
B.J. Raji 1.478 -0.531
Jay Ratliff 0.821 1.530
Ndamukong Suh 0.900 1.227
Geno Atkins 0.793 1.056
On the other hand we have these guys, most of whom were highly drafted, that are entering bozo/failure territory (at least for their draft position):
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Terrence Cody -1.242 -1.864
Torell Troup -0.481 -0.158
Glenn Dorsey -1.466 -0.188
Kentwan Balmer -0.245 -0.451
Justin Harrell 0.041 -0.343
In Justin Harrell's case people might argue that he failed because of constant injuries, but I suspect there was little upside there to begin with.
The bulk of the players fall somewhere between these two groups, so evaluating them becomes a bit trickier. My point is simply to suggest that such risky and subjective speculation should probably be reserved for the later rounds of the draft, and that high draft picks should generally conform more towards players who actually proved to be worth a damn.
Just for shits and giggles, I thought I would also throw out this score, though technically he is a 3-4 defensive end:
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
J.J.Watt 1.473 2.347
Hmm, J.J. Watt, how can you not love those numbers?
Since I will probably refer to the Kangaroo Score somewhat frequently, I should probably mention something for the sake of clarity. The Kangaroo Score for a player at one position generally shouldn't be compared directly to a player at another position. This is because the score is a measure of how much they deviate from their peers at a particular position. So, a linebacker with a 1.250 score may look good, but if he was dropped into the defensive tackle pool, he would get crushed, and his score would be much lower.
There are some other factors, such as college production, that I think are good to toss into the mix, but for now I just wanted to present a little bit related to the actual value of the NFL Combine. People often want to dismiss its usefulness, but there is some important information that comes from it. Later on I will try to show how some of these things relate to other positions (hmm, this was initially supposed to be about pass rushing 3-4 outside linebackers, but I got sidetracked).
Here are some links to different player positions, that illustrate the effects of the Kangaroo Score:
3-4 Outside Linebackers and 4-3 Defensive Ends
Athleticism and the Offensive Line
Athleticism and the Offensive Line pt. 2 Compares traits of late round successes to highly drafted busts
'Big' Wide Receivers - focuses on Aaron Mellette, but illustrates the point.
Running Backs - talks about how the Kangaroo Score relates to being a 'power' running back
Athleticism and the Defensive Tackle -Compares the athleticism of successful DTs to busts.
The score largely comes from a prospect's vertical jump and their broad jump. Of course, not all jumps are equal. A player weighing 200 pounds with a 36 inch vertical jump, simply isn't showing the same power or explosiveness as a 250 pound guy with the same jump. My solution was to multiply a players weight by their jump, find what the average result was, and the see how many standard deviations a player's score was from that average. It's just a simple way of gauging a player's lower body power. We can extrapolate from this a simple mass times velocity equals force view of things, with the jump being used as the measure of velocity, to estimate the amount of force a player could generate against his opponent. So, basically, I look at players as human projectiles.
For some positions, like defensive tackle, this could be seen as a measure of the power that they are generating when the ball is snapped.. It's sort a general test of an athlete's quick twitch muscles, and their overall explosiveness. For defensive tackles this measurement alone is more than adequate to identify prospects, but I'll generally refine things a bit further. As you move outwards from the defensive tackle, and a player's mass decreases from defensive ends to linebackers, to safeties, and finally to cornerbacks, you start to see agility become more of a factor. The way I see it, a player (at any position, but in this case a pass rusher), could either explode through or past his opponent, or try to evade/work around them. So, as their mass decreases it becomes more important that the player's score in the agility drills (short shuttle and 3-cone)go up. Ideally a player would do well in all these categories, but that is somewhat unusual. Continuing with the human projectile idea, you could compare a guy with a high Kangaroo score to a depleted uranium round fired from a tank, while a guy who also has a good agility score is more like a heat seeking missile. Hmm, this human projectile idea is sounding more and more idiotic with every word I type.
Sticking with defensive tackles for a minute, let me add this. While this explosiveness might be all that you need for a nose tackle, who can satisfy a team's expectations by simply being fat and immovable, the more their agility score goes up the more likely they are to create at least some pressure on the quarterback.
Here are some noteworthy defensive tackles and what their scores look like:
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Haloti Ngata 2.043 -0.645
B.J. Raji 1.478 -0.531
Jay Ratliff 0.821 1.530
Ndamukong Suh 0.900 1.227
Geno Atkins 0.793 1.056
On the other hand we have these guys, most of whom were highly drafted, that are entering bozo/failure territory (at least for their draft position):
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Terrence Cody -1.242 -1.864
Torell Troup -0.481 -0.158
Glenn Dorsey -1.466 -0.188
Kentwan Balmer -0.245 -0.451
Justin Harrell 0.041 -0.343
In Justin Harrell's case people might argue that he failed because of constant injuries, but I suspect there was little upside there to begin with.
The bulk of the players fall somewhere between these two groups, so evaluating them becomes a bit trickier. My point is simply to suggest that such risky and subjective speculation should probably be reserved for the later rounds of the draft, and that high draft picks should generally conform more towards players who actually proved to be worth a damn.
Just for shits and giggles, I thought I would also throw out this score, though technically he is a 3-4 defensive end:
Player Kangaroo Score Agility Score
J.J.Watt 1.473 2.347
Hmm, J.J. Watt, how can you not love those numbers?
Since I will probably refer to the Kangaroo Score somewhat frequently, I should probably mention something for the sake of clarity. The Kangaroo Score for a player at one position generally shouldn't be compared directly to a player at another position. This is because the score is a measure of how much they deviate from their peers at a particular position. So, a linebacker with a 1.250 score may look good, but if he was dropped into the defensive tackle pool, he would get crushed, and his score would be much lower.
There are some other factors, such as college production, that I think are good to toss into the mix, but for now I just wanted to present a little bit related to the actual value of the NFL Combine. People often want to dismiss its usefulness, but there is some important information that comes from it. Later on I will try to show how some of these things relate to other positions (hmm, this was initially supposed to be about pass rushing 3-4 outside linebackers, but I got sidetracked).
Here are some links to different player positions, that illustrate the effects of the Kangaroo Score:
3-4 Outside Linebackers and 4-3 Defensive Ends
Athleticism and the Offensive Line
Athleticism and the Offensive Line pt. 2 Compares traits of late round successes to highly drafted busts
'Big' Wide Receivers - focuses on Aaron Mellette, but illustrates the point.
Running Backs - talks about how the Kangaroo Score relates to being a 'power' running back
Athleticism and the Defensive Tackle -Compares the athleticism of successful DTs to busts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)