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!

     

Probability Analysis of the Burns and DJ decision


Evil Hurney
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

image.png.ce0ab436516abfc33fadeba023085c02.png

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 

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

image.png.43765a40364b6a6b6955083717d3249b.png

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Evil Hurney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

image.png.43765a40364b6a6b6955083717d3249b.png

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.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...