NFL Draft Value Chart (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=527

I’m sure most of the PFR readers have seen the NFL draft value chart, sometimes referred to as the Jimmy Johnson draft chart. Lots of people have discussed whether it’s accurate, and whether it’s still valuable in an era of escalating salaries. I’ll sidestep the salaries issue today, and just focus on the actual draft value chart.

For one, how would we know whether or not it’s accurate? I suppose there are a few ways of analyzing that, but you need to assign some basic value to each draft pick. We know that Pick N is always better than Pick N+5, but how big is that difference if N = 5, or N = 25, or N = 100?

I looked at every draft from 1970 to 1999, giving me thirty years of drafts. I then assigned the approximate career value of each player to his rookie draft slot. So for the number one pick, we’ve got 133 points of value from Peyton Manning, 77 points of value from Keyshawn Johnson, 32 points of value from Kenneth Sims, and the value from all the other number one picks from 1970 to 1999. If you do this for the first 224 picks in every draft, and you can then get an average value for each draft pick.

Rest of the article, including a picture, is at the link. I think most in the SP will find this pretty interesting.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Looking forward to reading the article (will get to it at lunch). I think that Jimmy Johnson convincing everyone that his chart was meant as a general chart to be used by everyone year after year was absolute genius. It wasn't designed for that at all IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

 

[GregR_2]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=527

I’m sure most of the PFR readers have seen the NFL draft value chart, sometimes referred to as the Jimmy Johnson draft chart. Lots of people have discussed whether it’s accurate, and whether it’s still valuable in an era of escalating salaries. I’ll sidestep the salaries issue today, and just focus on the actual draft value chart.

For one, how would we know whether or not it’s accurate? I suppose there are a few ways of analyzing that, but you need to assign some basic value to each draft pick. We know that Pick N is always better than Pick N+5, but how big is that difference if N = 5, or N = 25, or N = 100?

I looked at every draft from 1970 to 1999, giving me thirty years of drafts. I then assigned the approximate career value of each player to his rookie draft slot. So for the number one pick, we’ve got 133 points of value from Peyton Manning, 77 points of value from Keyshawn Johnson, 32 points of value from Kenneth Sims, and the value from all the other number one picks from 1970 to 1999. If you do this for the first 224 picks in every draft, and you can then get an average value for each draft pick.

Rest of the article, including a picture, is at the link. I think most in the SP will find this pretty interesting.

This may be a bit of a nitpick. You come close to touching on something at one point closer to the end, but there is something I think you should have pointed out more clearly up front.The NFL chart is based on 10 years of actual draft pick trades that were made in the NFL. Thus it is a market value chart, which isn't always the same as a player value chart would be. That may not be something that everyone will agree with at first read, but it's true. Doug Drinen did a nice job of giving an example of this a couple of weeks ago: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=298

I don’t know the history of the pick chart, but I assume it was built to match the market that had already been established. In other words, it seems likely that the chart is based on trades that had actually occurred.

But the vast majority of those trades occurred while one of the two teams was on the clock, and therefore both teams know exactly who is available with the pick. My strong suspicion is that Jacksonville would have been happy to make this deal on Saturday morning, while Denver would not have. The Broncos were only willing to make it because they knew for sure that a particular player — Jarvis Moss in this case — was available. And this is the case for most of the draft day trades.

Since the team trading up is the one with their sites on a particular guy that they now know is available, they’re the team that’s more likely to overpay (compared to what they would have paid 24 hours prior). But because the chart is built from historical data, this overpayment has been built right into the chart!

What you're doing in your article is a good thing... an NFL team should want to know where market value for a pick and the player value taken with the pick seems to differ, because knowing that helps a team get the most out of their trades and picks.But I think that's a distinction that should be made more clearly. You are not conducting a test that shows if the NFL chart accomplishes what it is trying to show, but are instead testing it against other criteria. And that isn't the only criteria that should be considered either. For example, the salary of the draft slots versus the level they will likely perform at is something that teams should be aware of and factoring into their decisions.

 

[GregR_2]

Looking forward to reading the article (will get to it at lunch). I think that Jimmy Johnson convincing everyone that his chart was meant as a general chart to be used by everyone year after year was absolute genius. It wasn't designed for that at all IMO.

I don't think he convinced anyone who matters (i.e. NFL teams) of that. It isn't hard to find articles of teams saying they create a new chart every year to fit that year's draft. In looking for an article to confirm my memory before making my statement about how JJ's chart was originally built, I came across articles indicating just that.But the media isn't going to take the time to update the chart each year, nor are the fans. To us, it isn't worth the time to do so, so we keep using JJ's as a general chart.

 

[Getinthemix]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

That thing is terrible. 2 early 2nds are worth considerably more than 1.1.

 

[JKL]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=527

I’m sure most of the PFR readers have seen the NFL draft value chart, sometimes referred to as the Jimmy Johnson draft chart. Lots of people have discussed whether it’s accurate, and whether it’s still valuable in an era of escalating salaries. I’ll sidestep the salaries issue today, and just focus on the actual draft value chart.

For one, how would we know whether or not it’s accurate? I suppose there are a few ways of analyzing that, but you need to assign some basic value to each draft pick. We know that Pick N is always better than Pick N+5, but how big is that difference if N = 5, or N = 25, or N = 100?

I looked at every draft from 1970 to 1999, giving me thirty years of drafts. I then assigned the approximate career value of each player to his rookie draft slot. So for the number one pick, we’ve got 133 points of value from Peyton Manning, 77 points of value from Keyshawn Johnson, 32 points of value from Kenneth Sims, and the value from all the other number one picks from 1970 to 1999. If you do this for the first 224 picks in every draft, and you can then get an average value for each draft pick.

Rest of the article, including a picture, is at the link. I think most in the SP will find this pretty interesting.

This may be a bit of a nitpick. You come close to touching on something at one point closer to the end, but there is something I think you should have pointed out more clearly up front.The NFL chart is based on 10 years of actual draft pick trades that were made in the NFL. Thus it is a market value chart, which isn't always the same as a player value chart would be. That may not be something that everyone will agree with at first read, but it's true. Doug Drinen did a nice job of giving an example of this a couple of weeks ago: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=298

I don’t know the history of the pick chart, but I assume it was built to match the market that had already been established. In other words, it seems likely that the chart is based on trades that had actually occurred.

But the vast majority of those trades occurred while one of the two teams was on the clock, and therefore both teams know exactly who is available with the pick. My strong suspicion is that Jacksonville would have been happy to make this deal on Saturday morning, while Denver would not have. The Broncos were only willing to make it because they knew for sure that a particular player — Jarvis Moss in this case — was available. And this is the case for most of the draft day trades.

Since the team trading up is the one with their sites on a particular guy that they now know is available, they’re the team that’s more likely to overpay (compared to what they would have paid 24 hours prior). But because the chart is built from historical data, this overpayment has been built right into the chart!

What you're doing in your article is a good thing... an NFL team should want to know where market value for a pick and the player value taken with the pick seems to differ, because knowing that helps a team get the most out of their trades and picks.But I think that's a distinction that should be made more clearly. You are not conducting a test that shows if the NFL chart accomplishes what it is trying to show, but are instead testing it against other criteria. And that isn't the only criteria that should be considered either. For example, the salary of the draft slots versus the level they will likely perform at is something that teams should be aware of and factoring into their decisions.

According to this link, which discusses a story in the Dallas Morning News in 2004, minority owner Mike McCoy developed the chart in 1991 by looking back at previous four years worth of trade data.

 

[GregR_2]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=527

I’m sure most of the PFR readers have seen the NFL draft value chart, sometimes referred to as the Jimmy Johnson draft chart. Lots of people have discussed whether it’s accurate, and whether it’s still valuable in an era of escalating salaries. I’ll sidestep the salaries issue today, and just focus on the actual draft value chart.

For one, how would we know whether or not it’s accurate? I suppose there are a few ways of analyzing that, but you need to assign some basic value to each draft pick. We know that Pick N is always better than Pick N+5, but how big is that difference if N = 5, or N = 25, or N = 100?

I looked at every draft from 1970 to 1999, giving me thirty years of drafts. I then assigned the approximate career value of each player to his rookie draft slot. So for the number one pick, we’ve got 133 points of value from Peyton Manning, 77 points of value from Keyshawn Johnson, 32 points of value from Kenneth Sims, and the value from all the other number one picks from 1970 to 1999. If you do this for the first 224 picks in every draft, and you can then get an average value for each draft pick.

Rest of the article, including a picture, is at the link. I think most in the SP will find this pretty interesting.

This may be a bit of a nitpick. You come close to touching on something at one point closer to the end, but there is something I think you should have pointed out more clearly up front.The NFL chart is based on 10 years of actual draft pick trades that were made in the NFL. Thus it is a market value chart, which isn't always the same as a player value chart would be. That may not be something that everyone will agree with at first read, but it's true. Doug Drinen did a nice job of giving an example of this a couple of weeks ago: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=298

I don’t know the history of the pick chart, but I assume it was built to match the market that had already been established. In other words, it seems likely that the chart is based on trades that had actually occurred.

But the vast majority of those trades occurred while one of the two teams was on the clock, and therefore both teams know exactly who is available with the pick. My strong suspicion is that Jacksonville would have been happy to make this deal on Saturday morning, while Denver would not have. The Broncos were only willing to make it because they knew for sure that a particular player — Jarvis Moss in this case — was available. And this is the case for most of the draft day trades.

Since the team trading up is the one with their sites on a particular guy that they now know is available, they’re the team that’s more likely to overpay (compared to what they would have paid 24 hours prior). But because the chart is built from historical data, this overpayment has been built right into the chart!

What you're doing in your article is a good thing... an NFL team should want to know where market value for a pick and the player value taken with the pick seems to differ, because knowing that helps a team get the most out of their trades and picks.But I think that's a distinction that should be made more clearly. You are not conducting a test that shows if the NFL chart accomplishes what it is trying to show, but are instead testing it against other criteria. And that isn't the only criteria that should be considered either. For example, the salary of the draft slots versus the level they will likely perform at is something that teams should be aware of and factoring into their decisions.

According to this link, which discusses a story in the Dallas Morning News in 2004, minority owner Mike McCoy developed the chart in 1991 by looking back at previous four years worth of trade data.

Sounds like differing versions of events. What I said was from an article on a Jaguars site that was quoting JJ directly. http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...271230355.shtml

Johnson developed the chart after going through the 1989 draft feeling like he needed a compass to direct him.

"I went through my first draft shooting from the hip, and I knew there had to be a smarter way to do it," Johnson said.

"So I had people with the Cowboys go through the last 10 years of every NFL trade that involved just draft picks. That's how I came up with a numbers system. Having that chart helped me move around on draft day.

"We were listening to trades almost every round. When you're calling 20 teams about a trade, I wanted to have something in front of me where I could make a decision in two or three minutes."

Either way though, both versions have in common the salient point that it's a market value chart.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Looking forward to reading the article (will get to it at lunch). I think that Jimmy Johnson convincing everyone that his chart was meant as a general chart to be used by everyone year after year was absolute genius. It wasn't designed for that at all IMO.

I don't think he convinced anyone who matters (i.e. NFL teams) of that. It isn't hard to find articles of teams saying they create a new chart every year to fit that year's draft. In looking for an article to confirm my memory before making my statement about how JJ's chart was originally built, I came across articles indicating just that.But the media isn't going to take the time to update the chart each year, nor are the fans. To us, it isn't worth the time to do so, so we keep using JJ's as a general chart.

That's interesting, I hadn't actually read before that NFL GM's actually made their own charts. Maybe it's just lazy journalism from lazy journalists, but I was under the distinct impression that most teams actually used JJ's original chart every year. And of course, using the same chart each year for every team makes no sense. Some drafts are deeper than others, some teams have players rated differently than others and each team has different needs as well. So it would make sense if teams created their own charts every single year. But I'm not entirely convinced that GMs always do what makes sense either.It certainly seemed as if KC uses the draft chart when they made their pre-draft trade. As I understand it, the switch of 6th round picks essentially swung the deal in KC's favor according to JJ's draft chart.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

 

[Chase Stuart]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

... and the "right answer" can never be known.The best answer is probably between all of these extremes, but it is like anything else - timing and buyer/seller determine value. The pick is worth whatever someone else is willing to "pay" for it.

There is also the economy and time factors. With the current salary cap (which may end soon?), the picks are worth more now as you get to keep these players at a cheap rate for longer. As for time, draft picks are like lawnmowers - they cost more in the spring and they go on sale after the summer is over. In the NFL draft picks rarely if ever exchange hands between Week 1 and Week 17, so the value is down. Teams with a top pick rarely move them because value will go up in April.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

... and the "right answer" can never be known.The best answer is probably between all of these extremes, but it is like anything else - timing and buyer/seller determine value. The pick is worth whatever someone else is willing to "pay" for it.

There is also the economy and time factors. With the current salary cap (which may end soon?), the picks are worth more now as you get to keep these players at a cheap rate for longer. As for time, draft picks are like lawnmowers - they cost more in the spring and they go on sale after the summer is over. In the NFL draft picks rarely if ever exchange hands between Week 1 and Week 17, so the value is down. Teams with a top pick rarely move them because value will go up in April.

Yes.But there is an average value for the player that gets selected with the pick. That's the small point I'm going after.

 

[GregR_2]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

... and the "right answer" can never be known.The best answer is probably between all of these extremes, but it is like anything else - timing and buyer/seller determine value. The pick is worth whatever someone else is willing to "pay" for it.

There is also the economy and time factors. With the current salary cap (which may end soon?), the picks are worth more now as you get to keep these players at a cheap rate for longer. As for time, draft picks are like lawnmowers - they cost more in the spring and they go on sale after the summer is over. In the NFL draft picks rarely if ever exchange hands between Week 1 and Week 17, so the value is down. Teams with a top pick rarely move them because value will go up in April.

Yes.But there is an average value for the player that gets selected with the pick. That's the small point I'm going after.

There's some flaws to that approach too though. The team shouldn't be trading based on the average of value of the pick on the clock. They should be trading based on what they expect to be the value of the player they will take with that pick. As Drinen pointed out, the team acquiring the pick on the clock should be valuing that pick higher than the rest of the picks in the trade because they are certain who they are going to get with it. The uncertainty in those other picks makes them less valuable in comparison.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

... and the "right answer" can never be known.The best answer is probably between all of these extremes, but it is like anything else - timing and buyer/seller determine value. The pick is worth whatever someone else is willing to "pay" for it.

There is also the economy and time factors. With the current salary cap (which may end soon?), the picks are worth more now as you get to keep these players at a cheap rate for longer. As for time, draft picks are like lawnmowers - they cost more in the spring and they go on sale after the summer is over. In the NFL draft picks rarely if ever exchange hands between Week 1 and Week 17, so the value is down. Teams with a top pick rarely move them because value will go up in April.

Yes.But there is an average value for the player that gets selected with the pick. That's the small point I'm going after.

There's some flaws to that approach too though. The team shouldn't be trading based on the average of value of the pick on the clock. They should be trading based on what they expect to be the value of the player they will take with that pick. As Drinen pointed out, the team acquiring the pick on the clock should be valuing that pick higher than the rest of the picks in the trade because they are certain who they are going to get with it. The uncertainty in those other picks makes them less valuable in comparison.

Agreed, GregR.This is a league-wide, pre-draft day chart.

 

[Andy Herron]

First of all, this thread has some really good reading and "perspectives", which brings us back to the original question of the post.

NFL Draft Chart, right or wrong?

As has been well pointed out, it would all be in the eye of the beholder.

What's "right" about it is the very idea in and of itself. What's "wrong" about it is the fact that it doesn't add up the same for all teams in any given year.

Just the fact that teams now have a tool to use for trades as opposed to just flying by the seat of their pants is a big win for everybody. You have to wonder if Mike Lynn would have swung that trade for Herschel Walker had he had a chart in front of him, but then Mike Ditka did a similar thing for Ricky Williams, so who knows?

The genius of it still comes back to Jimmy Johnson though. While I do recall Mike McCoy having a hand in it, it was the young, aggressive, fresh-eyed approach by Jimmy Johnson to an old system that really brought a tangible idea to the table. I know there is mention of it in his book "Turning This Thing Around." It's been too many years since I've read it, and it's currently still packed in a box somewhere from a recent move or I'd refer to it.

In any case, the way I remember it is that Jimmy was using his chart long before others could get their hands on it, although they were clamouring about it a great deal. Jimmy clearly saw that there was really no rhyme or reason to draft day trades as far as values were concerned. It made him very uncomfortable in that he was approaching the drafts in those early years wanting to wheel and deal and not knowing if he was losing or gaining value. He wanted something that was going to work for him in rebuilding the Cowboys as fast as he could. As we all know, he had no tolerance for losing at all, nor was he accustomed to it. Once he obtained that chart, it was all systems go. He and Jerry were making trades in those early 90's like the draft had never seen before, and Super Bowls were soon to follow. To go from 1-15 in 1989 to Champions in '92 and '93 (before free agency) was astounding and unprecedented. So yes, if you can coach, evaluate talent and know how to use the chart, it's "right". You can't argue with a trophy case full of Lombardi trophies. I don't know that a case could be made that they would have had the same results "without" that chart. It not only gave them a reference as to value, but it gave them "confidence".

 

[Chase Stuart]

First of all, this thread has some really good reading and "perspectives", which brings us back to the original question of the post.NFL Draft Chart, right or wrong?As has been well pointed out, it would all be in the eye of the beholder. What's "right" about it is the very idea in and of itself. What's "wrong" about it is the fact that it doesn't add up the same for all teams in any given year.Just the fact that teams now have a tool to use for trades as opposed to just flying by the seat of their pants is a big win for everybody. You have to wonder if Mike Lynn would have swung that trade for Herschel Walker had he had a chart in front of him, but then Mike Ditka did a similar thing for Ricky Williams, so who knows?The genius of it still comes back to Jimmy Johnson though. While I do recall Mike McCoy having a hand in it, it was the young, aggressive, fresh-eyed approach by Jimmy Johnson to an old system that really brought a tangible idea to the table. I know there is mention of it in his book "Turning This Thing Around." It's been too many years since I've read it, and it's currently still packed in a box somewhere from a recent move or I'd refer to it. In any case, the way I remember it is that Jimmy was using his chart long before others could get their hands on it, although they were clamouring about it a great deal. Jimmy clearly saw that there was really no rhyme or reason to draft day trades as far as values were concerned. It made him very uncomfortable in that he was approaching the drafts in those early years wanting to wheel and deal and not knowing if he was losing or gaining value. He wanted something that was going to work for him in rebuilding the Cowboys as fast as he could. As we all know, he had no tolerance for losing at all, nor was he accustomed to it. Once he obtained that chart, it was all systems go. He and Jerry were making trades in those early 90's like the draft had never seen before, and Super Bowls were soon to follow. To go from 1-15 in 1989 to Champions in '92 and '93 (before free agency) was astounding and unprecedented. So yes, if you can coach, evaluate talent and know how to use the chart, it's "right". You can't argue with a trophy case full of Lombardi trophies. I don't know that a case could be made that they would have had the same results "without" that chart. It not only gave them a reference as to value, but it gave them "confidence".

Ironically enough, Johnson's biggest draft decision was as big a blunder as you could ever make. After taking Aikman at 1.01 in the '89 draft, the Cowboys later used a supplemental first round pick on QB Steve Walsh. The Cowboys went 1-15, and promptly lost the rights to the first pick in the draft. Can you imagine if the Raiders used a supplemental first rounder on a QB last year, and ended up with the worst record in the league and lost the 1.01 this year? Well, I guess you can, but can you imagine any other franchise doing that?The Cowboys could have had Seau on all of their championship teams. Of course, it worked out for Dallas, proving that it's better to be lucky than good. They almost certainly would have taken Blair Thomas at 1.01 that year, and instead drafted Emmitt Smith with a late first round pick.

 

[GroveDiesel]

ESPN The Mag's Ben Riley offered a new chart (isn't everyone?) in theApril 21st edition.

That's also an interesting read but I cannot find an online version.

Hang on, I found this:

Blog Version

Thanks, Jeff.I'm not really sure where they came up with their draft chart values. It's hard to put any stock into the numbers until I see how they were derived.

The JJ chart was made from prior trades, as GregR mentioned.The ESPN version was based on more recent deals and some studies. I will post an excerpt:

Problem is, Johnson's handiwork is completely screwy. To create their chart, the Cowboys studied the previous four years' worth of trades involving draft picks, essentially basing their point system on what the market was telling them. Unfortunately at the time, the market was insanely biased in favor of high picks, skewing Johnson's values. For instance, the seventh overall pick is worth 1,500 points, exactly 50% of the points of the first overall. Huh? Does it sound right to you that last year's No. 1, JaMarcus Russell, was twice as valuable as No. 7 Adrian Peterson? Meanwhile, the No. 32 overall is barely worth half of the No. 16, and early second-rounders have double the value of early-third rounders. C'mon.

That's why we're here to create a new draft-value chart for the 21st century. Professors Cade Massey and Richard Thaler, in 2006, published a paper titled "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Sounds wonky, but it's actually wickedly cool stuff. Basically, the two profs show that GMs overestimate the value of both high draft picks and their own ability to select the best players with those picks. As part of their study, Massey and Thaler tracked the average number of games started for every player drafted between 1991 and 2002. For example, the No. 1 overall pick plays about 12 games per year on average over his first five seasons, compared with six games for the average second-rounder.

Massey and Thaler agreed to share their research with us, plus bonus data from 2003, so we could generate new draft values based on the actual, average performance of each pick. You'll find our performance-adjusted draft-value chart, conveniently plotted alongside the old chart, starting on the first page of this story. What a sight.

Now, our new chart does have its limitations. "Average games started" is a decent proxy for "player performance," but it doesn't take into account the relative quality of those starts. For instance, QB Alex Smith has played in 32 games since the 49ers made him the first overall pick in 2005, but those haven't exactly been good games.

Still, this new chart is a step in the right direction, at least going by the old-fashioned smell test. Under the new chart, the seventh pick is worth 2,820 points, approximately 94% of the value of the first overall pick. That smells about right. In fact, according to the new chart, you have to wait until late in the second round before the value of each pick dips below 50% of the value of the first overall pick.

A new chart makes sense due to the Salary Cap Era and the new philosophies across the league. Gone are the 5-Year Plans and now it is "Win Now, Since They Did".

The Masser study was very flawed.As for looking at the value of players, the approximate value system used in my draft chart >>>>>>>>>>> value system of average games started used in this draft chart.

Obviously I'm biased, but I think my draft chart does the best job of any system out there to tell you the true value of each pick. The 1st pick is really worth the 17th and 18th picks. JJ's chart overvalues the top pick; this guys draft chart undervalues the top pick.

... and the "right answer" can never be known.The best answer is probably between all of these extremes, but it is like anything else - timing and buyer/seller determine value. The pick is worth whatever someone else is willing to "pay" for it.

There is also the economy and time factors. With the current salary cap (which may end soon?), the picks are worth more now as you get to keep these players at a cheap rate for longer. As for time, draft picks are like lawnmowers - they cost more in the spring and they go on sale after the summer is over. In the NFL draft picks rarely if ever exchange hands between Week 1 and Week 17, so the value is down. Teams with a top pick rarely move them because value will go up in April.

Yes.But there is an average value for the player that gets selected with the pick. That's the small point I'm going after.

There's some flaws to that approach too though. The team shouldn't be trading based on the average of value of the pick on the clock. They should be trading based on what they expect to be the value of the player they will take with that pick. As Drinen pointed out, the team acquiring the pick on the clock should be valuing that pick higher than the rest of the picks in the trade because they are certain who they are going to get with it. The uncertainty in those other picks makes them less valuable in comparison.

Agreed, GregR.This is a league-wide, pre-draft day chart.

And while I agree that it's a better starting point and the numbers make more sense, it's still relatively useless since it doesn't take into account the relative value of the current year's draft. For instance, maybe all the experts will end up being wrong, but it's widely believed that this year's draft did not have anybody truly worthy of being a #1 pick. Take the pre-draft grades on the guys in the 2006 draft and compare them to the pre-draft grades on the guys at the top of the 2008 draft. The guys 1-4 in the 2006 draft probably all would have gone before anybody in the 2008 draft was selected. So the 1-4 picks in 2006 were MORE valuable than they were in 2008.

Now, the one thing your chart does by not taking into account the draft class is eliminate the overconfidence of a team in their grading abilities. Rather than trusting them to create accurate grades, it takes a generic average to be the guide.

Essentially, it's the difference between going by strict AVT in fantasy football versus creating your own customized VBD sheet.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Essentially, it's the difference between going by strict AVT in fantasy football versus creating your own customized VBD sheet.

I would say it's more like the difference between going with a customized VBD sheet, and going with the average of the EOY FPs from the FBGs VBD sheet from Year N-X to Year N.But yes, this certainly has the limitations of looking at simply historical averages, and does not factor in current draft grades. Alex Smith and Mario Williams and Chris Long are all projected the same, with this chart.

 

[Sidewinder16]

The Cowboys could have had Seau on all of their championship teams. Of course, it worked out for Dallas, proving that it's better to be lucky than good. They almost certainly would have taken Blair Thomas at 1.01 that year, and instead drafted Emmitt Smith with a late first round pick.

Sorry for the hijack, but how does it prove that? Do you believe that Johnson wasn't good; that he won 2 Super Bowls because he was lucky?He made a blunder picking Walsh with a supplemental pick, losing out on what would eventually be a 1.01, and still built a juggernaut that won 2 Super Bowls. Is that being lucky or being good?

I don't think you can call him lucky just because he may have blundered the 1.01. IMO, it's a pretty big assumption that JJ would have almost certainly drafted Thomas and that Thomas' career would have turned out the same way it did had he been in Dallas and because of that blundered pick Johnson would not have been successful.