PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Draft Pick to Wins Analysis


DaFace
11-30-2008, 06:49 PM
This didn't turn out to be as informative as I'd hoped, but I was considering the whole "play for draft pick vs. play to win" debate and wondered how draft order relates to wins in successive seasons. So, I analyzed the 1996 to 2006 drafts and looked at the average number of wins of the teams with the top 5 picks in each draft (in terms of order - not necessarily who ended up picking there due to trades). Here are the results:

Pick Y1 Wins Y2 Wins Y1Y2 Wins
1 5.2 8.1 13.3
2 7.3 7.5 14.7
3 5.8 7.5 13.3
4 7.5 7.0 14.5
5 7.4 7.4 14.7

I know there's a lot more to it, but I'm not in the mood to look into it any further at this point. Perhaps it will yield some interesting discussion. So...discuss.

EDIT: I found a (perhaps) more informative way to look at this, so here's the revised analysis.

OK, here ya go. This revision looks at reverse rank, rather than draft order, since I could get at that fairly easily. Reverse rank = draft order for all the lower picks but gets messy with playoff teams, so the higher numbers may not be as reliable. Effectively, this is a measure of parity in the NFL, but can be used to get an idea of how well an average team will perform based on their current-year ranking.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2427/analysisld6.png (http://imageshack.us)

Dark green - Improved 10 or more positions
Light green - Improved 5-9 positions
White - Didn't change 5 or more points either direction
Light red - Fell 5-9 positions
Dark red - Fell 10 or more positions

Fried Meat Ball!
11-30-2008, 06:50 PM
How many of those teams had Carl Peterson at GM and Herm Edwards at HC?

OnTheWarpath58
11-30-2008, 06:52 PM
Interesting.

I'd love to see the 3rd year. (or the entire first round)

DaFace
11-30-2008, 06:54 PM
Interesting.

I'd love to see the 3rd year. (or the entire first round)

Yeah, I'd like to do more, but I can't figure out an easy way to do it other than manually going back and forth between Wikipedia's draft records and the standings records at ProFootballReference.com. Maybe if I get bored next weekend I'll see if I can automate it somehow.

Direckshun
11-30-2008, 06:56 PM
This whole conversation is ****ing stupid.

The Colts haven't had a top ten pick in YEARS and they are consistently stocked with talented rookies and remain one of the youngest and most successful teams in the league.

Edited to add: bring back DraftPlanet.

StcChief
11-30-2008, 07:00 PM
How many of those teams had Carl Peterson at GM and Herm Edwards at HC?
I would say the Chiefs brain trust is dragging the avg down in Y1 (this year) if 2007 was included, but since 2008 is incomplete now it can't be (only in projection of 2-3 Ws) speaking of dragging it down look at Detriot and Faiders..... Y1/Y2 might be interesting.....

I still think we trade down.

DaFace
11-30-2008, 07:01 PM
This whole conversation is ****ing stupid.

The Colts haven't had a top ten pick in YEARS and they are consistently stocked with talented rookies and remain one of the youngest and most successful teams in the league.

Edited to add: bring back DraftPlanet.

Actually, they bring up the #1 pick stats pretty significantly in year 2. They picked up Manning at the #1 spot in 1998, won 3 games in 98, and 13 games in 1999. Without that, the "Y2 Wins" average for #1 picks drops to 7.6.

I don't think the question is so much "Are top draft picks necessary to win?" as it is "Do top draft picks drive wins for previously bad teams?"

Deberg_1990
11-30-2008, 07:01 PM
We are still on course for a top 5 pick. I dont get why everyone is so upset??

Brock
11-30-2008, 07:04 PM
We are still on course for a top 5 pick. I dont get why everyone is so upset??

A few dummies thought we had a chance at Matt Stafford and/or that Herm Edwards was going to be fired.

dj56dt58
11-30-2008, 07:06 PM
This whole conversation is ****ing stupid.

The Colts haven't had a top ten pick in YEARS and they are consistently stocked with talented rookies and remain one of the youngest and most successful teams in the league.

Edited to add: bring back DraftPlanet.

yeah..they also have Peyton Manning who was #1 overall

OnTheWarpath58
11-30-2008, 07:11 PM
A few dummies thought we had a chance at Matt Stafford and/or that Herm Edwards was going to be fired.

This.

Deberg_1990
11-30-2008, 07:12 PM
This whole conversation is ****ing stupid.

The Colts haven't had a top ten pick in YEARS and they are consistently stocked with talented rookies and remain one of the youngest and most successful teams in the league.

Edited to add: bring back DraftPlanet.

You realize several of Indys core players were hight draft picks?


Manning
E James when he was dominate those first few years.
Marvin Harrison
Reggie Wayne
Dwight Freeney

StcChief
11-30-2008, 07:15 PM
We are still on course for a top 5 pick. I dont get why everyone is so upset??
so we still draft in top 5.

you haven't noticed the Stafford Hardon that seems to be the main focus of some here......

we have more pressing needs on D/OL. We trade down for more picks. Maybe even Gonzo is moved. The youth movement continues and we might get 5-8 Ws in 2009 as projected by cdcox 10 year stats.

OnTheWarpath58
11-30-2008, 07:16 PM
This whole conversation is ****ing stupid.

The Colts haven't had a top ten pick in YEARS and they are consistently stocked with talented rookies and remain one of the youngest and most successful teams in the league.

Edited to add: bring back DraftPlanet.

What he said.

Deberg_1990
11-30-2008, 07:16 PM
so we still draft in top 5.

you haven't noticed the Stafford Hardon that seems to be the main focus of some here......

we have more pressing needs on D/OL. We trade down for more picks. Maybe even Gonzo is moved. The youth movement continues and we might get 5-8 Ws in 2009 as projected by cdcox 10 year stats.

I still think we need to draft a QB somewhere on the first day.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-30-2008, 07:17 PM
What he said.

Lest we forget that their entire franchise hinges upon 1 of the 2 top 5 picks they've had in that time.

DaFace
11-30-2008, 07:18 PM
I think I've found a better way to do this. Gimme half an hour or so.

StcChief
11-30-2008, 07:19 PM
I still think we need to draft a QB somewhere on the first day.It may happen depend on how many draft picks we end up getting. I have no problem with that, just stop the insane idea of getting Stafford, he won't fall barring major issue (health, injury, combine issue)...

Mr. Flopnuts
11-30-2008, 07:19 PM
A few dummies thought we had a chance at Matt Stafford and/or that Herm Edwards was going to be fired.

This.

Saul Good
11-30-2008, 07:24 PM
I still think we need to draft a QB somewhere on the first day.
Nate Davis in round 2.

OnTheWarpath58
11-30-2008, 07:28 PM
Nate Davis in round 2.

Seriously, don't waste your time.

There are people here that think the sun rises and sets with Stafford, and Stafford alone.

It's just not possible that a team can get a franchise QB outside the Top 5.

So sayeth the Planet "experts".

Saul Good
11-30-2008, 07:52 PM
Seriously, don't waste your time.

There are people here that think the sun rises and sets with Stafford, and Stafford alone.

It's just not possible that a team can get a franchise QB outside the Top 5.

So sayeth the Planet "experts".
Let me rephrase...What I meant to say is that we should trade our first round pick this year and next year plus Arrowhead Stadium and the Sprint Center, build light rail and ship it to Detroit in exchange for their number 1 pick. Then we draft Matt Stafford with our newly acquired first round pick.

Then, with our second round pick, we draft Matt Stafford again.

DaFace
11-30-2008, 08:07 PM
OK, here ya go. This revision looks at reverse rank, rather than draft order, since I could get at that fairly easily. Reverse rank = draft order for all the lower picks but gets messy with playoff teams, so the higher numbers may not be as reliable. Effectively, this is a measure of parity in the NFL, but can be used to get an idea of how well an average team will perform based on their current-year ranking.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2427/analysisld6.png (http://imageshack.us)

Dark green - Improved 10 or more positions
Light green - Improved 5-9 positions
White - Didn't change 5 or more points either direction
Light red - Fell 5-9 positions
Dark red - Fell 10 or more positions

OnTheWarpath58
11-30-2008, 08:08 PM
Let me rephrase...What I meant to say is that we should trade our first round pick this year and next year plus Arrowhead Stadium and the Sprint Center, build light rail and ship it to Detroit in exchange for their number 1 pick. Then we draft Matt Stafford with our newly acquired first round pick.

Then, with our second round pick, we draft Matt Stafford again.

Now you're getting the hang of it.

DaneMcCloud
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
I still think we need to draft a QB somewhere on the first day.

No fucking way.

The Chiefs have Thigpen and Gray as 1 and 2 next year. They should draft a 5th-7th developmental guy. Day one (first or second round) is a COMPLETE waste of a pick, especially with pressing needs at RG, RT, C, DE & LB.

cdcox
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
OK, here ya go. This revision looks at reverse rank, rather than draft order, since I could get at that fairly easily. Reverse rank = draft order for all the lower picks but gets messy with playoff teams, so the higher numbers may not be as reliable. Effectively, this is a measure of parity in the NFL, but can be used to get an idea of how well an average team will perform based on their current-year ranking.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2427/analysisld6.png (http://imageshack.us)

Dark green - Improved 10 or more positions
Light green - Improved 5-9 positions
White - Didn't change 5 or more points either direction
Light red - Fell 5-9 positions
Dark red - Fell 10 or more positions

Classic regression toward the mean: good teams get worse, bad team get better, average teams stay average.

DaFace
11-30-2008, 08:16 PM
So, overall, teams with the #1 overall pick typically become a top 13 team two years after making that pick, while the other top picks don't see nearly as big of a bump. Still, all of the top 7 picks show noticeable improvement in 3 years, so that's worth something I guess.

cdcox
11-30-2008, 08:18 PM
No ****ing way.

The Chiefs have Thigpen and Gray as 1 and 2 next year. They should draft a 5th-7th developmental guy. Day one (first or second round) is a COMPLETE waste of a pick, especially with pressing needs at RG, RT, C, DE & LB.

DE is the only position out of those that you listed that warrant a top five pick. I hope the best for Thigpen, but I realistically give him a 1 in 5 chance of developing into a franchise QB. It would be Chiefsesque to assume the QB position is solved.

DaFace
11-30-2008, 08:20 PM
Classic regression toward the mean: good teams get worse, bad team get better, average teams stay average.

Pretty much. I find it more interesting to compare the close picks. For example, the fact that teams drafting second tend to see an initial bump, but then fall off, is a bit surprising to me.

Deberg_1990
11-30-2008, 08:20 PM
No ****ing way.

The Chiefs have Thigpen and Gray as 1 and 2 next year. They should draft a 5th-7th developmental guy. Day one (first or second round) is a COMPLETE waste of a pick, especially with pressing needs at RG, RT, C, DE & LB.


Let me say it again for the 1589th time.

A team can NEVER have too many good QB's.

cdcox
11-30-2008, 08:22 PM
Pretty much. I find it more interesting to compare the close picks. For example, the fact that teams drafting second tend to see an initial bump, but then fall off, is a bit surprising to me.

11 players per draft slot is a pretty small sample size. You'd expect to see some of that.

Saul Good
11-30-2008, 08:26 PM
Let me say it again for the 1589th time.

A team can NEVER have too many good QB's.
Too many good QBs is a great problem to have. It's like having too many good pitchers in baseball.

No GM ever sits around and says to himself, "How in the hell am I going to unload all of these great QBs?"