Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

read this you manchildren and apply it to everything in your life

electro's horse

By electro's horse,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

rodeo Veteran

rodeo

Posted
Posted

yeah i have a hard time believing that some teams are just consistently luckier than others. the jaguars have 3 players remaining on their team from the 2007-2012 drafts. and one of them is that punter they took before russel wilson.

 

And we have 1 left from 2011. Poor, unlucky Marty Hurney. I'm glad we signed a luckier GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shaka Mentor

shaka

Posted
Posted

Warning:  The below contains a little bit of math.  

 

I think the point they're trying to make is that there's an edge to having more draft picks but once you start thinking about it realistically it's common sense.    

 

/Begin Math

 

I'll use an oversimplified example with numbers I'm pulling out of my ass no where.    I'm not saying this is realistic by anymeans but should help illustrate the point.  

 

A first rounder has a 50% chance of being a stud and 50% chance of being a bust.

A second rounder has 40/60. 

A third rounder has 30/70.

 

A situation arises where you can trade your first rounder for two thirds.  What do you do?

 

Stick with the first, you have a 50/50 shot at coming out with something decent.  

Take the trade:  You have a  .3 * .3 = 9% chance of both becoming studs, a 2=  * .7 * .3 42% chance of one being a stud and .7 * .7 = 49% chance of both busting.  You have a 51% shot at a favorable outcome.  

 

In this oversimplified example from a math standpoint, two third rounders are better than a first.  But really?  

 
/End Math

 

You start taking into account all the other things to consider (variables) like team needs, coaching, age, previous injuries, combine performance, game film, level of talent in the draft at that position, potential future salary and so many others (scheme fit, work ethic, attitude, football intelligence) and I think their point goes out the window.  

 

Now what they're trying to say is that everyone overestimates their ability to evaluate those variables and that everyone's talent at evaluating those variables is pretty much the same?  That's laughable.  

 

To say that chance or luck is the biggest impact on the success of a draft is borderline crazy talk.  Does it have a lot of impact?  Yes.  Is it the only reason the Browns or Jaguars are out of super bowl conversations by week 3?  I'll let you answer that.  

 

These math geeks They probably did a whole bunch of unnecessary analysis to tell us something we already know.  More draft picks = more opportunities for good players.  Less draft picks = less opportunities for good players.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

Warning:  The below contains a little bit of math.  

 

I think the point they're trying to make is that there's an edge to having more draft picks but once you start thinking about it realistically it's common sense.    

 

/Begin Math

 

I'll use an oversimplified example with numbers I'm pulling out of my ass no where.    I'm not saying this is realistic by anymeans but should help illustrate the point.  

 

A first rounder has a 50% chance of being a stud and 50% chance of being a bust.

A second rounder has 40/60. 

A third rounder has 30/70.

 

A situation arises where you can trade your first rounder for two thirds.  What do you do?

 

Stick with the first, you have a 50/50 shot at coming out with something decent.  

Take the trade:  You have a  .3 * .3 = 9% chance of both becoming studs, a 2=  * .7 * .3 42% chance of one being a stud and .7 * .7 = 49% chance of both busting.  You have a 51% shot at a favorable outcome.  

 

In this oversimplified example from a math standpoint, two third rounders are better than a first.  But really?  

 
/End Math

 

You start taking into account all the other things to consider (variables) like team needs, coaching, age, previous injuries, combine performance, game film, level of talent in the draft at that position, potential future salary and so many others (scheme fit, work ethic, attitude, football intelligence) and I think their point goes out the window.  

 

Now what they're trying to say is that everyone overestimates their ability to evaluate those variables and that everyone's talent at evaluating those variables is pretty much the same?  That's laughable.  

 

To say that chance or luck is the biggest impact on the success of a draft is borderline crazy talk.  Does it have a lot of impact?  Yes.  Is it the only reason the Browns or Jaguars are out of super bowl conversations by week 3?  I'll let you answer that.  

 

These math geeks They probably did a whole bunch of unnecessary analysis to tell us something we already know.  More draft picks = more opportunities for good players.  Less draft picks = less opportunities for good players.  

 

Nice post.

 

Thinking you can win at the draft using math is a lot like thinking you can become a poker champ by playing the odds.

 

Real world poker champions will tell you they don't play the cards, they play people.  And an NFL scout or personnel guy would tell you the same thing.

 

There's no stat or formula in the world that can tell you how a college kid is going to transition to being a paid professional with freedom and money.  Part of a GMs job is knowing which of those guys will grow up and which will wash out.

 

It's certainly not an exact science, but the reality is some people are indeed better at it than others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thefuzz Mentor

thefuzz

Posted
Posted

In the last 6 years, Ozzie Newsome has only drafted 1 pro bowler

 

Gotta be honest here...while that stat doesn't sound good, the pro bowl is as much about player hype as it is player play.

 

Also, much tougher to draft a pro bowler at the back end of every round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teeray Rookie

teeray

Posted
Posted

Nice post.

Thinking you can win at the draft using math is a lot like thinking you can become a poker champ by playing the odds.

Real world poker champions will tell you they don't play the cards, they play people. And an NFL scout or personnel guy would tell you the same thing.

There's no stat or formula in the world that can tell you how a college kid is going to transition to being a paid professional with freedom and money. Part of a GMs job is knowing which of those guys will grow up and which will wash out.

It's certainly not an exact science, but the reality is some people are indeed better at it than others.

That is kind of correct but kind of incorrect in regards to poker.

You have to know the math to be successful in poker. You have to know where you are and your odds. Because without it you can't properly value certain tight calls or folds.

Even if you think your opponent may be bluffing you have to consider the value of a call against the arbitrary percentage of whether he is really bluffing or not.

It is all odds and value. But you also have to play your opponent because odds of what a player holds will be different from player to player (in other words a loose player has a higher value to call than a tight player who only plays premium)

You also have to evaluate pot odds correctly or else you may miss good value calls.

Even tells are mostly betting patterns, and not nervous ticks or physical tells you see in movies, although some guys are brilliant at findict physical tells, most are not.

Tl;Dr Version- all poker is some form of math

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

That is kind of correct but kind of incorrect in regards to poker.

You have to know the math to be successful in poker. You have to know where you are and your odds. Because without it you can't properly value certain tight calls or folds.

Even if you think your opponent may be bluffing you have to consider the value of a call against the arbitrary percentage of whether he is really bluffing or not.

It is all odds and value. But you also have to play your opponent because odds of what a player holds will be different from player to player (in other words a loose player has a higher value to call than a tight player who only plays premium)

You also have to evaluate pot odds correctly or else you may miss good value calls.

Even tells are mostly betting patterns, and not nervous ticks or physical tells you see in movies, although some guys are brilliant at findict physical tells, most are not.

Tl;Dr Version- all poker is some form of math

 

It's an illustration, ya nimrod :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...