Probability Analysis of the Burns and DJ decision

[hepcat]

You failed to take into account the draft assets as a tool to trade up to get a franchise QB in next years or future drafts which outweighs any other value on the roster. I get why they kept DJ but Burns wasn’t worth what the Rams offered. 

[trueblade]

25 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

To be fair, a “solid” player is an abstraction, while a “pro bowl” player is something tangible to perform the calculations.

"Pro bowl" is also fairly derided each year as not that great of a metric with obvious snubs and obvious players making it who shouldn't.

[MasterAwesome]

30 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

To be fair, a “solid” player is an abstraction, while a “pro bowl” player is something tangible to perform the calculations.

But DJ Moore hasn't actually made a Pro Bowl lol.  OP is just considering him a "pro bowl caliber" player which in itself is also an abstraction.  I mean I'd agree that DJ Moore is a pro bowl caliber player, but it's still subjective since he hasn't actually achieved that accolade and therefore is not tangible as you are suggesting.

[Tr3ach]

36 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

To be fair, a “solid” player is an abstraction, while a “pro bowl” player is something tangible to perform the calculations.

I agree it's hard to come up with a tangible value but there is still definitely value there.

[Tr3ach]

Honestly the most surprising statistic to me in all of this is 44% of first rounders become pro bowlers.   That's a lot higher than I would have expected off the top of my head.

[mrcompletely11]

1 hour ago, Evil Hurney said:

There's been a lot of digital ink spilled over the non-trades of Brian Burns and DJ Moore. The alleged total compensation was 3 1st-round picks and 1 2nd-round pick for the pair. I was curious what probability said regarding the decision.

Assumptions:

• We can spend all the picks at the same time and neglect the year of the draft pick (some were way off in the future making them less valuable)
• Burns and DJ are considered Pro Bowl caliber players; Note that I didn't say All Pro, which is a higher bar
• A 1st round pick becomes a Pro Bowler 44% of the time; Keep in mind WRs and DL have been shown to hit at a much lower rate
• A 2nd round pick becomes a Pro Bower 18% of the time

Background:

I am going to model this using a probability tree where we are essentially rolling a dice for each pick. We have 3 dice weighted for a 1st-round pick (44% success) and 1 dice weighted for a 2nd-round pick (18% success). Once we have 2 success we stop rolling and collect the profit (the extra picks).

Results:

Takeaway:

Within this context the Panthers made the right decision. They have a 41% chance of profiting off the trade (big or small gain) compared to a 52% chance of losing on the trade (big or small loss).

Dj Moore hasn't made a pro bowl 

[Davidson Deac II]

Fwiw, it took us so long and so many draft picks to get a solid receiver who is not a head case and can stay healthy, that it surprises me how many are willing to let him go for a couple of draft picks. 

  

[Evil Hurney]

1 hour ago, Tr3ach said:

I appreciate all the work you put into this but there are some other statistics to weigh,  such as they will be coming off rookie contracts soon.  Also your scale weighs really good players that arent probowlers as 0.   4 solid players on rookie contracts, 3 of them first 5 years might have more value than 2 borderline probowlers on big deals.  You're right statistically with your calculations but you've skewed it a little for your point.

Fair point. It really comes down to what you mean by "solid" and how they are valued. Star power, at least at WR and EDGE, seems to matter in the league. I'm not convinced that 4 YGMs are better than 2 Burns, or 4 TMJs are better than 2 DJs.

I ran some numbers based on a 20% bust rate for 1st rounders and 35% for 2nd rounders along with the previous Pro Bowler numbers in the OP; Bust in this case being someone that didn't get a 2nd contract. That means for each roll the player could be a A) Pro Bowler, B) Non-Bust, or C) Bust.

Results:

[Evil Hurney]

1 hour ago, JVic said:

Which dice represents Brian Burns going somewhere else, you get nothing and your expectation of profiting drops to 0%?

 

48 minutes ago, Newtcase said:

While interesting, this is 2d analysis.  The 3d analysis includes cap impact and the potential that these players walk away for nothing after the 5th year.

Burns is under team control for 3 more seasons (5th year + 2 franchise tags). At any point in the next year they can still trade him for those Rams picks. It's not like they have been (or will be) spent.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Evil Hurney

[Tr3ach]

6 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

Fair point. It really comes down to what you mean by "solid" and how they are valued. Star power, at least at WR and EDGE, seems to matter in the league. I'm not convinced that 4 YGMs are better than 2 Burns, or 4 TMJs are better than 2 DJs.

I ran some numbers based on a 20% bust rate for 1st rounders and 35% for 2nd rounders along with the previous Pro Bowler numbers in the OP; Bust in this case being someone that didn't get a 2nd contract. That means for each roll the player could be a A) Pro Bowler, B) Non-Bust, or C) Bust.

Results:

Just to make sure I say it again I definitely appreciate your post and the work you've done.   It's on of the better posts weve had in a long time.  I'm not sure how you could quantify an actual solid starter.  I wouldnt say that's ygm or tmj yet.  There is definitely a big gap between a ygm caliber player and a pro bowl player.

[Ornias]

4 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

 

Burns is under team control for 3 more seasons (5th year + 2 franchise tags). At any point in the upcoming offseason they can still trade him for those Rams picks. It's not like they have been spent.

Rams were trying to run it back this year though. Their window is pretty close to slamming shut. Which makes those picks even more valuable. 

[1of10Charnatives]

6 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

 

Burns is under team control for 3 more seasons (5th year + 2 franchise tags). At any point in the next year they can still trade him for those Rams picks. It's not like they have been (or will be) spent.

Doubtful those picks continue to be on the table at that point.

[Sir Purr]

 I think we should trade all of our really good players for draft picks so we have more chances to replace them with really good players.  The Huddle has convinced me that this is the way.

[Wolfcop]

10 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

 

Burns is under team control for 3 more seasons (5th year + 2 franchise tags). At any point in the next year they can still trade him for those Rams picks. It's not like they have been (or will be) spent.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think we will get another shot at that offer or anything close. The longer Burns goes without producing double digit sack seasons, the less likely it becomes.