Roster turnover in the free agency era (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=3977

Tim Truemper, frequent commenter here on the P-F-R blog, recently e-mailed us with a question that had been bugging him: how much variance is there among teams with respect to roster stability in the free agency era?

Essentially, Tim wants to know if certain teams do a great job at retaining their guys and if certain teams do a poor job. That's a question that AV can help us answer.

I looked at every team from 1993 (the inception of free agency) to 2007, a fifteen year period. I recorded the AV of each player on each team for those fifteen seasons. Then, I noted whether each player was playing for that same team in the following season, was playing for no team, or was playing for another team. Generally, when a player is not on a team the following season, it's because of injury, retirement or lack of talent (and, occasionally, incarceration); that's not something that's affected by free agency, though, so I'm only going to focus on players who switch teams in the off-season. For simplicity's purposes, I've ignored the 1995 Browns as opposed to seeing if those players were on the '96 Ravens; I've also split the Browns into the old Browns and new Browns. I did not do the same things for other franchises that moved cities, and I don't have a terribly persuasive justification for that.

The table below shows the best 15 players to switch teams in the free agency era; obviously, some of these players will have left via trade.

...Rest of post available here, but for the Pool, here's the final table:

I then averaged the percentage loss for each team over the 15-year period. The table below summarizes the results; the Texans and Bengals lead all franchises with the least amount of "voluntary" turnover. Things are very tight at the bottom, with the Eagles, Ravens, Saints and Browns having the most turnover. "Cle1" represents the old Browns; "Cle2" the new ones. For each franchise, in addition to the average turnover, I've listed the teams with the smallest and biggest turnover from '93 to '07. I've also listed the best player lost in the period by each franchise, as measured by AV in his last season with the team. I only listed one player for space reasons, and often there was a tie (three or four guys leaving with an AV of 9, for example); a player was randomly selected in that event.

Avg	  Smallest Turn   Biggest Turn	Best playerhtx	90.4%	htx2003-95.9	htx2005-81.3	David Carrcin	89.6%	cin1993-97.2	cin1998-79.7	Jeff Blakerai	88.4%	rai1998-94.7	rai2003-73.1	Kerry Collinsclt	87.9%	clt1999-99.1	clt1998-74.5	Edgerrin Jameskan	87.7%	kan2002-96.4	kan2007-76.9	Jared Allennwe	87.4%	nwe1995-98.3	nwe1994-76.2	Asante Samuelsea	87.4%	sea2002-99.0	sea1999-79.5	Steve Hutchinsonjax	87.1%	jax2004-93.5	jax2001-71.1	Gary Walkerpit	86.8%	pit2006-95.5	pit1996-71.3	Chad Browngnb	86.7%	gnb1996-95.0	gnb2005-76.0	Brett Favredal	86.5%	dal2006-96.8	dal2003-78.5	Deion Sanderstam	86.2%	tam2002-93.3	tam2003-74.7	Hardy Nickersonbuf	86.0%	buf1998-96.8	buf2000-75.5	Peerless Pricewas	86.0%	was2007-98.1	was1994-72.0	Antonio Piercesdg	85.9%	sdg2004-98.3	sdg1993-73.3	Drew Breesdet	85.8%	det2000-93.7	det1993-73.1	Lomas Brownden	85.8%	den1995-93.1	den1994-76.6	Clinton Portiscar	85.6%	car2006-92.8	car2003-79.6	Kevin Greeneoti	85.6%	oti2002-94.5	oti2004-72.9	Jon Runyanatl	85.5%	atl2002-94.1	atl1993-71.7	Tony Martincrd	85.1%	crd2005-95.5	crd1993-66.1	Calvin Pacenyg	85.1%	nyg1997-97.6	nyg1993-73.4	Greg Jacksonmin	85.0%	min2007-95.1	min1993-69.9	Chris Dolemanchi	84.2%	chi2005-99.1	chi1996-73.6	Jeff Grahamsfo	84.1%	sfo2006-94.0	sfo2003-69.5	Ricky Wattersram	84.0%	ram2006-93.5	ram1998-69.4	Trent Greenmia	84.0%	mia1998-94.1	mia1995-70.4	Adewale Ogunleyenyj	84.0%	nyj1996-92.9	nyj1994-65.7	Laveranues Colescle2   83.9%	cle2007-94.7	cle2004-70.1	Antonio Bryantrav	83.8%	rav2007-97.6	rav2001-57.0	Adalius Thomasnor	83.8%	nor2006-95.6	nor2001-61.2	Ricky Williamsphi	83.7%	phi2000-95.2	phi1995-65.1	Hugh Douglascle1   82.6%	cle1993-85.0	cle1994-80.2	Michael Dean Perry

 

[Chase Stuart]

Every team's percentage of retained AV in the following season:

tmyr	   tm	 yr	  AV	 RetAV	  %clt1999	clt	1999	227	225	99.1%chi2005	chi	2005	223	221	99.1%sea2002	sea	2002	201	199	99.0%nwe1995	nwe	1995	184	181	98.4%sdg2004	sdg	2004	237	233	98.3%was2007	was	2007	216	212	98.1%rav2007	rav	2007	173	169	97.7%nyg1997	nyg	1997	211	206	97.6%sea1998	sea	1998	205	200	97.6%rav2003	rav	2003	233	227	97.4%cin1993	cin	1993	148	144	97.3%cin2004	cin	2004	200	194	97.0%dal2006	dal	2006	222	215	96.8%buf1998	buf	1998	220	213	96.8%kan2002	kan	2002	226	218	96.5%cin2005	cin	2005	230	221	96.1%htx2003	htx	2003	174	167	96.0%kan2003	kan	2003	245	235	95.9%was1996	was	1996	216	207	95.8%nor2006	nor	2006	232	222	95.7%pit2006	pit	2006	224	214	95.5%crd2005	crd	2005	179	171	95.5%htx2007	htx	2007	194	185	95.4%phi2000	phi	2000	232	221	95.3%min2007	min	2007	208	198	95.2%was1995	was	1995	187	178	95.2%was1999	was	1999	223	212	95.1%sea2007	sea	2007	222	211	95.0%cin2000	cin	2000	141	134	95.0%gnb1996	gnb	1996	282	268	95.0%min2003	min	2003	220	209	95.0%nyg1996	nyg	1996	177	168	94.9%was1997	was	1997	214	203	94.9%rai1998	rai	1998	192	182	94.8%rai2000	rai	2000	249	236	94.8%cle2007	cle2	2007	209	198	94.7%rai2006	rai	2006	133	126	94.7%buf1996	buf	1996	223	211	94.6%oti2002	oti	2002	219	207	94.5%nor2007	nor	2007	199	188	94.5%rai1999	rai	1999	216	204	94.4%kan2005	kan	2005	226	213	94.2%atl2002	atl	2002	221	208	94.1%buf2007	buf	2007	170	160	94.1%mia1998	mia	1998	221	208	94.1%oti1997	oti	1997	202	190	94.1%sfo2006	sfo	2006	168	158	94.0%kan1995	kan	1995	247	232	93.9%mia1996	mia	1996	196	184	93.9%mia2002	mia	2002	226	212	93.8%rai2002	rai	2002	242	227	93.8%det2000	det	2000	193	181	93.8%clt2002	clt	2002	203	190	93.6%ram2006	ram	2006	203	190	93.6%jax2004	jax	2004	202	189	93.6%pit2002	pit	2002	216	202	93.5%atl2000	atl	2000	154	144	93.5%clt2000	clt	2000	231	216	93.5%cin2001	cin	2001	169	158	93.5%sfo1999	sfo	1999	166	155	93.4%tam2002	tam	2002	255	238	93.3%gnb2000	gnb	2000	209	195	93.3%den1995	den	1995	218	203	93.1%jax1996	jax	1996	203	189	93.1%nwe2006	nwe	2006	257	239	93.0%cle2003	cle2	2003	185	172	93.0%phi2007	phi	2007	213	198	93.0%sfo1995	sfo	1995	255	237	92.9%nyj1996	nyj	1996	155	144	92.9%dal2001	dal	2001	169	157	92.9%car2006	car	2006	183	170	92.9%min2006	min	2006	197	183	92.9%clt2004	clt	2004	253	235	92.9%sdg2006	sdg	2006	267	248	92.9%chi2004	chi	2004	166	154	92.8%pit2001	pit	2001	249	231	92.8%crd1999	crd	1999	152	141	92.8%buf1993	buf	1993	221	205	92.8%tam1997	tam	1997	234	217	92.7%nor2003	nor	2003	206	191	92.7%cin1995	cin	1995	192	178	92.7%nor2000	nor	2000	218	202	92.7%mia1997	mia	1997	204	189	92.6%nyj2006	nyj	2006	204	189	92.6%rav2002	rav	2002	190	176	92.6%crd2001	crd	2001	176	163	92.6%gnb2003	gnb	2003	243	225	92.6%det2002	det	2002	160	148	92.5%gnb1993	gnb	1993	226	209	92.5%den1997	den	1997	260	240	92.3%pit2000	pit	2000	221	204	92.3%nyj1998	nyj	1998	245	226	92.2%cin1996	cin	1996	204	188	92.2%jax2000	jax	2000	216	199	92.1%gnb1998	gnb	1998	228	210	92.1%dal1997	dal	1997	202	186	92.1%rai1995	rai	1995	202	186	92.1%jax2005	jax	2005	239	220	92.1%nyg2000	nyg	2000	226	208	92.0%tam2007	tam	2007	226	208	92.0%tam1998	tam	1998	211	194	91.9%nwe1996	nwe	1996	235	216	91.9%tam2005	tam	2005	210	193	91.9%sfo2001	sfo	2001	245	225	91.8%det1997	det	1997	220	202	91.8%htx2002	htx	2002	157	144	91.7%rai1994	rai	1994	193	177	91.7%sdg2000	sdg	2000	156	143	91.7%clt1994	clt	1994	191	175	91.6%crd2007	crd	2007	188	172	91.5%den1999	den	1999	198	181	91.4%clt2007	clt	2007	266	243	91.4%nyg2006	nyg	2006	196	179	91.3%det1999	det	1999	207	189	91.3%car2004	car	2004	206	188	91.3%kan1994	kan	1994	205	187	91.2%min1997	min	1997	192	175	91.1%det2004	det	2004	180	164	91.1%nwe1993	nwe	1993	191	174	91.1%rai2001	rai	2001	223	203	91.0%sea2003	sea	2003	222	202	91.0%sdg2007	sdg	2007	230	209	90.9%kan2001	kan	2001	196	178	90.8%sea2001	sea	2001	192	174	90.6%dal2007	dal	2007	244	221	90.6%jax2007	jax	2007	242	219	90.5%nor2004	nor	2004	189	171	90.5%ram2004	ram	2004	177	160	90.4%pit2004	pit	2004	239	216	90.4%nwe2007	nwe	2007	299	270	90.3%chi2002	chi	2002	174	157	90.2%htx2004	htx	2004	193	174	90.2%kan2004	kan	2004	223	201	90.1%ram1999	ram	1999	282	254	90.1%jax1995	jax	1995	151	136	90.1%rai2004	rai	2004	171	154	90.1%det1998	det	1998	189	170	89.9%car2002	car	2002	188	169	89.9%min2002	min	2002	188	169	89.9%min1995	min	1995	207	186	89.9%pit2005	pit	2005	246	221	89.8%ram2003	ram	2003	234	210	89.7%dal1996	dal	1996	224	201	89.7%nwe1998	nwe	1998	203	182	89.7%was2005	was	2005	222	199	89.6%nyg2002	nyg	2002	221	198	89.6%nyj1993	nyj	1993	210	188	89.5%clt2003	clt	2003	238	213	89.5%min1996	min	1996	199	178	89.4%sfo2002	sfo	2002	208	186	89.4%min1998	min	1998	283	253	89.4%mia2005	mia	2005	198	177	89.4%buf2003	buf	2003	188	168	89.4%jax1999	jax	1999	244	218	89.3%jax2006	jax	2006	244	218	89.3%atl1994	atl	1994	177	158	89.3%gnb2006	gnb	2006	177	158	89.3%kan1997	kan	1997	240	214	89.2%atl2005	atl	2005	203	181	89.2%crd1996	crd	1996	175	156	89.1%rai1993	rai	1993	202	180	89.1%nwe2004	nwe	2004	256	228	89.1%car1995	car	1995	191	170	89.0%dal1995	dal	1995	245	218	89.0%chi1999	chi	1999	181	161	89.0%oti2001	oti	2001	181	161	89.0%sea1995	sea	1995	199	177	88.9%chi2006	chi	2006	262	233	88.9%gnb2007	gnb	2007	234	208	88.9%sfo1996	sfo	1996	240	213	88.8%cin2003	cin	2003	193	171	88.6%oti2005	oti	2005	175	155	88.6%oti2000	oti	2000	271	240	88.6%nwe2003	nwe	2003	236	209	88.6%tam2000	tam	2000	236	209	88.6%min2004	min	2004	209	185	88.5%dal1998	dal	1998	234	207	88.5%buf1995	buf	1995	207	183	88.4%gnb1999	gnb	1999	198	175	88.4%atl1999	atl	1999	172	152	88.4%phi1993	phi	1993	189	167	88.4%den1993	den	1993	231	204	88.3%ram2007	ram	2007	154	136	88.3%sdg1996	sdg	1996	179	158	88.3%nyj2003	nyj	2003	196	173	88.3%sdg1994	sdg	1994	221	195	88.2%buf1997	buf	1997	178	157	88.2%nor1994	nor	1994	186	164	88.2%atl2003	atl	2003	169	149	88.2%nor1998	nor	1998	169	149	88.2%cin2006	cin	2006	211	186	88.2%cle2000	cle2	2000	118	104	88.1%atl1998	atl	1998	252	222	88.1%phi2004	phi	2004	251	221	88.0%den1998	den	1998	258	227	88.0%htx2006	htx	2006	166	146	88.0%nyg2007	nyg	2007	207	182	87.9%clt1996	clt	1996	190	167	87.9%clt1995	clt	1995	214	188	87.9%nyg2004	nyg	2004	181	159	87.8%was2006	was	2006	181	159	87.8%den2007	den	2007	197	173	87.8%nyj2000	nyj	2000	213	187	87.8%det2006	det	2006	180	158	87.8%nyj2007	nyj	2007	171	150	87.7%sdg1998	sdg	1998	170	149	87.6%den1996	den	1996	242	212	87.6%crd2000	crd	2000	137	120	87.6%buf2001	buf	2001	152	133	87.5%tam2006	tam	2006	159	139	87.4%rav1999	rav	1999	222	194	87.4%cin2002	cin	2002	166	145	87.3%pit1994	pit	1994	243	212	87.2%cle2001	cle2	2001	186	162	87.1%nwe2001	nwe	2001	232	202	87.1%nyj1999	nyj	1999	193	168	87.0%den2000	den	2000	239	208	87.0%pit1998	pit	1998	185	161	87.0%jax1997	jax	1997	223	194	87.0%clt2005	clt	2005	269	234	87.0%nyg2005	nyg	2005	238	207	87.0%det2003	det	2003	168	146	86.9%chi2001	chi	2001	255	221	86.7%sea2005	sea	2005	254	220	86.6%oti2007	oti	2007	201	174	86.6%nwe2000	nwe	2000	185	160	86.5%atl2006	atl	2006	192	166	86.5%tam1996	tam	1996	177	153	86.4%gnb1995	gnb	1995	228	197	86.4%min2000	min	2000	213	184	86.4%car2000	car	2000	198	171	86.4%ram1995	ram	1995	176	152	86.4%oti2003	oti	2003	233	201	86.3%jax2003	jax	2003	182	157	86.3%sea1993	sea	1993	188	162	86.2%buf2004	buf	2004	229	197	86.0%mia1999	mia	1999	207	178	86.0%det2001	det	2001	156	134	85.9%cle2006	cle2	2006	163	140	85.9%rai1997	rai	1997	177	152	85.9%oti1998	oti	1998	198	170	85.9%phi2001	phi	2001	251	215	85.7%mia1993	mia	1993	214	183	85.5%clt1993	clt	1993	131	112	85.5%cin1994	cin	1994	165	141	85.5%pit1999	pit	1999	213	182	85.4%atl2004	atl	2004	199	170	85.4%phi1999	phi	1999	157	134	85.4%car1999	car	1999	225	192	85.3%nwe1997	nwe	1997	225	192	85.3%pit1995	pit	1995	224	191	85.3%sea1997	sea	1997	203	173	85.2%atl1997	atl	1997	196	167	85.2%sdg1999	sdg	1999	182	155	85.2%nyj2004	nyj	2004	229	195	85.2%phi1996	phi	1996	208	177	85.1%sfo2007	sfo	2007	161	137	85.1%cle1993	cle1	1993	194	165	85.1%ram2001	ram	2001	273	232	85.0%oti1996	oti	1996	219	186	84.9%clt2006	clt	2006	238	202	84.9%oti2006	oti	2006	165	140	84.8%oti1999	oti	1999	223	189	84.8%atl1995	atl	1995	209	177	84.7%phi1997	phi	1997	189	160	84.7%pit2003	pit	2003	189	160	84.7%crd1998	crd	1998	188	159	84.6%sdg2005	sdg	2005	233	197	84.5%gnb2004	gnb	2004	207	175	84.5%cle2002	cle2	2002	200	169	84.5%den2001	den	2001	212	179	84.4%sdg2003	sdg	2003	167	141	84.4%phi1998	phi	1998	141	119	84.4%ram1996	ram	1996	172	145	84.3%chi1994	chi	1994	197	166	84.3%chi2007	chi	2007	197	166	84.3%ram2000	ram	2000	241	203	84.2%phi2002	phi	2002	260	219	84.2%car2001	car	2001	171	144	84.2%cin1997	cin	1997	190	160	84.2%jax1998	jax	1998	215	181	84.2%kan2000	kan	2000	202	170	84.2%crd1997	crd	1997	169	142	84.0%kan1998	kan	1998	194	163	84.0%car1996	car	1996	244	205	84.0%pit2007	pit	2007	244	205	84.0%tam1999	tam	1999	224	188	83.9%crd2002	crd	2002	149	125	83.9%rai1996	rai	1996	211	177	83.9%dal1994	dal	1994	248	208	83.9%buf2002	buf	2002	192	161	83.9%mia1994	mia	1994	222	186	83.8%sea1994	sea	1994	191	160	83.8%rav2000	rav	2000	271	227	83.8%sea2004	sea	2004	197	165	83.8%dal2000	dal	2000	178	149	83.7%det1995	det	1995	238	199	83.6%mia2000	mia	2000	238	199	83.6%was2002	was	2002	189	158	83.6%crd2003	crd	2003	140	117	83.6%kan1996	kan	1996	194	162	83.5%nwe1999	nwe	1999	200	167	83.5%den2005	den	2005	242	202	83.5%dal1993	dal	1993	260	217	83.5%rav2005	rav	2005	185	154	83.2%car1998	car	1998	179	149	83.2%cin1999	cin	1999	161	134	83.2%den2004	den	2004	226	188	83.2%tam1994	tam	1994	166	138	83.1%nyj1995	nyj	1995	160	133	83.1%gnb2002	gnb	2002	213	177	83.1%ram1997	ram	1997	183	152	83.1%cin2007	cin	2007	194	161	83.0%crd2006	crd	2006	176	146	83.0%car2007	car	2007	170	141	82.9%rav1997	rav	1997	193	160	82.9%tam1993	tam	1993	146	121	82.9%dal2002	dal	2002	169	140	82.8%tam1995	tam	1995	163	135	82.8%det2007	det	2007	174	144	82.8%phi2006	phi	2006	226	187	82.7%nor2002	nor	2002	214	177	82.7%sfo1997	sfo	1997	237	196	82.7%nyj2002	nyj	2002	208	172	82.7%sfo1994	sfo	1994	283	234	82.7%was2004	was	2004	202	167	82.7%dal2004	dal	2004	173	143	82.7%rav2006	rav	2006	247	204	82.6%rav1998	rav	1998	188	155	82.4%kan1999	kan	1999	215	177	82.3%chi1993	chi	1993	192	158	82.3%sea2006	sea	2006	192	158	82.3%pit1993	pit	1993	220	181	82.3%sfo1993	sfo	1993	265	218	82.3%kan1993	kan	1993	208	171	82.2%car1997	car	1997	190	156	82.1%dal1999	dal	1999	229	188	82.1%clt1997	clt	1997	167	137	82.0%den2003	den	2003	228	187	82.0%chi1995	chi	1995	216	177	81.9%nwe2002	nwe	2002	216	177	81.9%nor1999	nor	1999	155	127	81.9%det1994	det	1994	204	167	81.9%atl1996	atl	1996	163	133	81.6%dal2005	dal	2005	211	172	81.5%car2005	car	2005	243	198	81.5%sdg2002	sdg	2002	189	154	81.5%nor1995	nor	1995	194	158	81.4%mia2003	mia	2003	209	170	81.3%htx2005	htx	2005	150	122	81.3%was1993	was	1993	150	122	81.3%sdg2001	sdg	2001	197	160	81.2%gnb1994	gnb	1994	234	190	81.2%crd1994	crd	1994	202	164	81.2%den2006	den	2006	207	168	81.2%nyg1998	nyg	1998	191	155	81.2%kan2006	kan	2006	212	172	81.1%oti1994	oti	1994	159	129	81.1%oti1995	oti	1995	206	167	81.1%rav1996	rav	1996	190	154	81.1%buf2006	buf	2006	189	153	81.0%was1998	was	1998	173	140	80.9%sea2000	sea	2000	167	135	80.8%phi2005	phi	2005	193	156	80.8%pit1997	pit	1997	223	180	80.7%tam2004	tam	2004	207	167	80.7%crd2004	crd	2004	191	154	80.6%gnb1997	gnb	1997	237	191	80.6%tam2001	tam	2001	216	174	80.6%nyg1995	nyg	1995	185	149	80.5%den2002	den	2002	220	177	80.5%ram2002	ram	2002	193	155	80.3%oti1993	oti	1993	233	187	80.3%crd1995	crd	1995	157	126	80.3%cle1994	cle1	1994	243	195	80.2%was2003	was	2003	177	142	80.2%nyg1999	nyg	1999	187	150	80.2%sdg1997	sdg	1997	146	117	80.1%sea1996	sea	1996	181	145	80.1%min2001	min	2001	175	140	80.0%phi1994	phi	1994	204	163	79.9%sdg1995	sdg	1995	199	159	79.9%cin1998	cin	1998	153	122	79.7%ram1993	ram	1993	153	122	79.7%car2003	car	2003	211	168	79.6%atl2007	atl	2007	166	132	79.5%sea1999	sea	1999	205	163	79.5%rai2007	rai	2007	165	131	79.4%chi2000	chi	2000	153	121	79.1%buf1994	buf	1994	196	155	79.1%mia2001	mia	2001	205	162	79.0%was2001	was	2001	185	146	78.9%sfo2000	sfo	2000	198	156	78.8%nyg2001	nyg	2001	196	154	78.6%dal2003	dal	2003	214	168	78.5%nor1993	nor	1993	204	160	78.4%nwe2005	nwe	2005	212	166	78.3%nor1997	nor	1997	175	137	78.3%ram2005	ram	2005	179	140	78.2%chi1997	chi	1997	160	125	78.1%nyg2003	nyg	2003	159	124	78.0%rav2004	rav	2004	222	173	77.9%det1996	det	1996	184	143	77.7%chi1998	chi	1998	166	129	77.7%sfo2005	sfo	2005	130	101	77.7%mia2006	mia	2006	188	146	77.7%clt2001	clt	2001	187	145	77.5%det2005	det	2005	169	131	77.5%sfo1998	sfo	1998	248	192	77.4%cle1999	cle2	1999	137	106	77.4%rai2005	rai	2005	176	136	77.3%nyj1997	nyj	1997	211	163	77.3%atl2001	atl	2001	180	139	77.2%ram1994	ram	1994	175	135	77.1%nyj2005	nyj	2005	157	121	77.1%gnb2001	gnb	2001	247	190	76.9%kan2007	kan	2007	169	130	76.9%den1994	den	1994	193	148	76.7%buf1999	buf	1999	234	179	76.5%buf2005	buf	2005	178	136	76.4%nwe1994	nwe	1994	215	164	76.3%gnb2005	gnb	2005	188	143	76.1%nyg1994	nyg	1994	192	146	76.0%chi2003	chi	2003	173	131	75.7%nor1996	nor	1996	173	131	75.7%sfo2004	sfo	2004	147	111	75.5%buf2000	buf	2000	200	151	75.5%nor2005	nor	2005	167	126	75.4%tam2003	tam	2003	214	160	74.8%clt1998	clt	1998	169	126	74.6%min1994	min	1994	207	154	74.4%mia2004	mia	2004	190	141	74.2%mia2007	mia	2007	155	115	74.2%cle2005	cle2	2005	176	130	73.9%jax2002	jax	2002	206	152	73.8%chi1996	chi	1996	186	137	73.7%was2000	was	2000	216	159	73.6%nyg1993	nyg	1993	230	169	73.5%sdg1993	sdg	1993	218	160	73.4%det1993	det	1993	201	147	73.1%rai2003	rai	2003	160	117	73.1%phi2003	phi	2003	226	165	73.0%oti2004	oti	2004	181	132	72.9%min1999	min	1999	228	166	72.8%was1994	was	1994	172	124	72.1%atl1993	atl	1993	195	140	71.8%pit1996	pit	1996	227	162	71.4%jax2001	jax	2001	201	143	71.1%mia1995	mia	1995	213	150	70.4%nyj2001	nyj	2001	209	147	70.3%min2005	min	2005	178	125	70.2%cle2004	cle2	2004	174	122	70.1%min1993	min	1993	203	142	70.0%sfo2003	sfo	2003	217	151	69.6%ram1998	ram	1998	170	118	69.4%crd1993	crd	1993	213	141	66.2%nyj1994	nyj	1994	175	115	65.7%phi1995	phi	1995	195	127	65.1%nor2001	nor	2001	183	112	61.2%rav2001	rav	2001	221	126	57.0%

 

[Steady Mooobin]

Wow that's impressive.

Now what?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wow that's impressive.Now what?

I guess you could look at the average spread among the top and bottom teams over the course of the study, and conclude that there isn't *that* much turnover. You can also see if certain teams have been better at retaining talent than others, or if teams league-wide have been better at managing the cap.I don't really know what to do with that data, I just decided to run it for the people (if any) that wanted it.

 

[coolnerd]

Seems like this has come up somewhere before

 

[renesauz]

I can't help wondering how useful this data is. Without quantifying and adjusting the numbers based on the QUALITY of players lost vs. retained...I'm not sure this data really shows us anything useful.

Some teams seem to retain all their best players, and can afford to let mediocre players walk. Others never seem to lose anybody, but the teams were so bad that nobody really wanted the players they didn't retain anyway. Other struggling squads can never seem to retain the best players, but over-pay for mediocre players and thus keep a higher % then you'd expect.

In the end, the data is interesting, but meaningless.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't help wondering how useful this data is. Without quantifying and adjusting the numbers based on the QUALITY of players lost vs. retained...I'm not sure this data really shows us anything useful.Some teams seem to retain all their best players, and can afford to let mediocre players walk. Others never seem to lose anybody, but the teams were so bad that nobody really wanted the players they didn't retain anyway. Other struggling squads can never seem to retain the best players, but over-pay for mediocre players and thus keep a higher % then you'd expect.In the end, the data is interesting, but meaningless.

The numbers are based on the quality of the players lost. It's measured as a percentage of team quality overall, but the quality of the players is the focus of the study.

 

[renesauz]

I can't help wondering how useful this data is. Without quantifying and adjusting the numbers based on the QUALITY of players lost vs. retained...I'm not sure this data really shows us anything useful.Some teams seem to retain all their best players, and can afford to let mediocre players walk. Others never seem to lose anybody, but the teams were so bad that nobody really wanted the players they didn't retain anyway. Other struggling squads can never seem to retain the best players, but over-pay for mediocre players and thus keep a higher % then you'd expect.In the end, the data is interesting, but meaningless.

The numbers are based on the quality of the players lost. It's measured as a percentage of team quality overall, but the quality of the players is the focus of the study.

I missed that in there (I'm assuming that's AV...which I have no clue what that stands for or how it's determined).Is it then re-adjusted based on the REPLACEMENT players value? Or by the subsequant years players value? Often a "stud" gets released who had plenty of production and we all wonder why....only to watch said stud do nothing in another system.I'm honestly not trying to poo-poo your efforts here. I simply don't see how any study of this nature could accurately or fairly rank NFL efficiancy....and there are outliers in the results which certainly support my statement. Houston's best record ever is what, 8 -8? Philly's been to how many NFC championship games this decade...how many wins? That they sit at opposite ends of the spectrum seems intuitively obvious....but they're reversed!

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't help wondering how useful this data is. Without quantifying and adjusting the numbers based on the QUALITY of players lost vs. retained...I'm not sure this data really shows us anything useful.Some teams seem to retain all their best players, and can afford to let mediocre players walk. Others never seem to lose anybody, but the teams were so bad that nobody really wanted the players they didn't retain anyway. Other struggling squads can never seem to retain the best players, but over-pay for mediocre players and thus keep a higher % then you'd expect.In the end, the data is interesting, but meaningless.

The numbers are based on the quality of the players lost. It's measured as a percentage of team quality overall, but the quality of the players is the focus of the study.

I missed that in there (I'm assuming that's AV...which I have no clue what that stands for or how it's determined).Is it then re-adjusted based on the REPLACEMENT players value? Or by the subsequant years players value? Often a "stud" gets released who had plenty of production and we all wonder why....only to watch said stud do nothing in another system.I'm honestly not trying to poo-poo your efforts here. I simply don't see how any study of this nature could accurately or fairly rank NFL efficiancy....and there are outliers in the results which certainly support my statement. Houston's best record ever is what, 8 -8? Philly's been to how many NFC championship games this decade...how many wins? That they sit at opposite ends of the spectrum seems intuitively obvious....but they're reversed!

AV stands for Approximate Value, which is an approximate guess at the value of each player based on his production, his position, and his team's production. It's rough, but it's the best (only?) way to compare players across positions and across seasons. It's far from perfect, but matches perception often enough to be very useful for a study like this.There are no re-adjustments based on replacement players, or subsequent player value; I'm not trying to measure that. Further, I'm not trying to rank NFL efficiency, or which NFL teams are the best. I'm merely measuring roster turnover, both good and bad. Cutting star players right before they decline may be a very wise decision, but it's just as clearly a big example of roster turnover. With good drafting and wise free agent signings, roster turnover is a good thing; with bad drafting and bad free agent signings, roster turnover is a bad thing. If you've got a bunch of duds, roster turnover is good; if you're the '00 Ravens, roster turnover is bad. If you're not that interested in how often franchises retain their talent in the free-agency era, you're not alone; I don't find it all that fascinating, either. But I thought some people might.