Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
The relationship between pick value and player success isn't linear. The further you trade back, the less potential high-end value you're getting. You limiting your chances of ending up with nothing but you're also limiting your chances of getting actual blue-chip talent.
Sure, you can shotgun it, take 3, and hit 1. You're not going home empty-handed.
Or you can use a rifle, hit 1, and ****ing KILL IT.
If you want a couple of pheasants, a shotgun works fine. If you want to bring down a rhino, you better have a rifle.
|
I understand where you're coming from, and I do think it is a balancing act..but give this a read:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/...s-irrationally
This was particularly interesting: He and Thaler figured this out by calculating the odds that the first player picked at any given position will perform better — in terms of the number of games he starts in his first five seasons — than the second player drafted at that position. This is relevant because a team will often trade up when they identify a player they prefer at a needed position: they need a wide receiver, and a few highly-rated ones are available, but they trade up because they're certain one is much better.
But the data says that teams just aren't very good at figuring out when this is true. On average, the chance that first player will start more games than the second one picked at his position: 52 percent. Compared to the third, it's still only 55 percent, and compared to the fourth, it's merely 56 percent.
Bottom Line: Scouts and GMs just aren't good enough to figure out who should really be in round 1 or round 2 or round 3 and are better off trading down for the most part.