Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The rest can be read here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=491
Plain and simply, No.
I know you mentioned you skipped over some of the math, so here's the abbreviated version:I looked at all QBs (the majority of which are white). I saw how they played in the NFL, relative to their draft position. This enabled me to put a number on what's intuitive -- i.e., Qbs drafted in the 1st round perform better than Qbs drafted in the third round; Qbs in the second round perform better than Qbs drafted in the fifth round. I could put a number on how much better they performed.Then, I saw whether or not all black QBs have outperformed or underperformed their draft position. You could go down the list with no data, and come to similar results. It's easy to see that Ware was a bust, Cunningham a good pick, Aaron Brooks a steal, Mike Vick an underperformer, Jeff Blake an overperformer, etc. But this just put some math on those numbers.I then, with several caveats, gave some theories that might explain the data. Make sense?
That's certainly true. That doesn't answer the questions, though, of whether there was discrimination against black QBs before the Moon era (perhaps surprisingly, of the four black QBs drafted before Moon came to the NFL, the answer appears to be no) and whether Moon changed the tide or completely ended the discrimination.
I understand what you were doing . . . but I did not see where there was conclusion A for white QBs and conclusion B for black QBs.For example, if the average expected return for white QBs was 682 points and they returned a score of 477 points. And by comparison, the black QBs returned 844 points on an expected return of 522 (or whatever the numbers turn out to be).
I think we should ask Tony Romo what he thinks!
Definitely an interesting point. I am working on a study to see if players from smaller schools have been discriminated against in the draft. One study I did with WRs showed that not to be true, but that work wasn't conclusive, and may not apply to all positions.
The sample size is definitely small, too small to make a definitive conclusion. Arguably that's also an effect of discrimination, though. The sample size in recent years is much larger, and there doesn't appear to be any discrimination going on anymore when it comes to drafting black QBs.
Based on his stellar play? LOL.
What proposal is ridiculous?
Can you explain this? I don't exactly follow.stp-d said:
By definition, the average expected return for all QBs equals what they actually returned. The average expected return for white QBs couldn't possibly be that low, since they're the overwhelming majority of the study.
I don't think you'd want to run this on any players that started their career in 2000. There's just not enough time, IMO. There are still guys like Manning from '98 running up numbers. I'm valuing quality, yes, but quantity is also being weighed quite a bit.And there's no cherrypicking from an intentional standpoint.
I'm not really sure what you mean.
Possibly.
How would you determine who is a draftable college QB? I also don't have a large database full of college players. I think looking at those drafted, and seeing if they over or underperformed their draft position, is a better way to do it.
He wasnt very good dont matter if he was white green black purple . he sucked . Thats why he didnt make it in the NFL.
I would suspect most would consider non-BCS schools, weak non-BCS schools, or D-III schools fit most people's definition. A strict definition would include just D-III schools, and a broad one would include all non-BCS schools.
Hey WD,Who is suggesting otherwise?
My point was, that unless you have a baseline for comparison you have no idea what the results mean.For example, it's conceivable that QB as a whole (black, white, green, or purple) have a universal prediliction that they are overvalued or undervalued.You plugged in the numbers based on point values, draft positions, and returns. That could show that QBs are worth where they are drafted or not. Follow that up with a breakdown between whire, black, purple, and green QBs and then you have more to look at.Having just the numbers for black QBs is only a puzzle piece but not a puzzle. But that's just how I see it.
You.Please read the title of the thread.
Actually, that's where the confusion lies. That's inconceivable, based on how I did this study. Think of it as adding up all the draft values for QBs, adding up all the career value of those QBs, then assign a career value for each draft value. The average (or total, if you prefer) has to be perfectly valued.
I get it now. You added up the results to determine the baseline, so the results are the baseline (if I said that right).
The title of the thread asks a question; it doesn't make a suggestion. "Does water fall in the opposite direction of gravity" doesn't make a suggestion, either.Additionally, even if the title did make a suggestion -- say, black QBs have been discriminated against -- that wouldn't suggest that black QBs are not equal to white QBs. It would just suggest that other people have discriminated against black QBs.
For many years, black players were significantly less marketable and popular to the American public as a whole, thus they didn't receive the same consideration (and for many years, comparable salaries) as white players. QB as one of the most marketable positions, drew the fans. I think there was inequality but some (or possibly a significant amount) was driven by market forces. Make the consumers happy if you want them to buy your product.
Alternately, over the same time period, look at all the colleges who had players drafted and break down by race all QBs from those colleges over the whole range.For example (caveat - these numbers are pulled outta my...): say Virginia had 9 QBs drafted during that 29 year stretch and a total of 31 starting QBs over that time. 2 of the 9 drafted QBs were black; 4 of the starting 31 were black.Because, realistically, how many QBs succeed in the NFL if they're not college starting QBs?I don't think it's an easy stat to track, mind, just possibly another piece to the equation.
Oh, ok. I didn't know if you were going by size or what. East Carolina is the third largest University in NC, with a little over 24,000 students. I know some schools have twice that many students. ECU isn't a BCS school. When Jeff Blake was the quarterback, ECU wasn't even in a conference, they were Independent. When David Garrard was quarterback ECU was in (and still is) Conference USA. I thought David would go before the 4th round in the draft, but he didn't. He still holds 28 school records in football. He was really good. In 1997 he was the states top-rated high school quarterback, and he got several scholarships to football powerhouse schools, but because of his size they wanted him to play linebacker or DE. He went to a summer football camp at ECU, and Steve Logan noticed him and this is a direct quote from Logan: "He came to our football camp and I asked him where he played. I was figuring he was a defensive lineman. He said, 'quarterback.' Then he threw one over the elementary school [from the football stadium], and I thought, 'Maybe you are a quarterback."
End result: the NFL is generally limited by its selection pool; was "trickle up" inequality from college programs a significant factor?
Semantics.It's nothing personal against your thread, but the act of shining a light on a topic will obviously bring implied thoughts. I think good examples lies northward in this thread. Why is there rarely discussion of Chinese, Latino, etc QB's being discriminated against?? If your answer is, "The sample size is too small," I would reply, "What is a proper sample size to conduct such a topic??
This is very likely a real effect, though much harder to measure. It seems likely that blacks who could play QB in Pop Warner and high school are often directed towards positions like WR and RB, as whites who could play RB and CB seem to be directed towards positions like QB, LB, and S.
Semantics matter quite a bit when you make an attack on another poster.I think it's an interesting topic, and a somewhat topical one considering it's Black History Month, and the proper perspective we now have on the '80s and '90s drafts. If you want to have a discussion on Chinese QBs, I don't think anyone would stop you.
Not really. A regression line isn't an "average" value in the way that you're describing it.
Timmy Chang wasn't given a fair chance either 
-QG
