DT Development 'n' Stuff

[MagicHef]

Here's a big waste of time I decided to work on:

I've compiled a list of every DT (4-3 DTs, 3-4 NTs, and 3-4 DEs) that has played in the past 5 years. Using PFF ratings for each one, I have done a couple things:

Charted average rating with years played:



As you can see, DTs have a small bump in skill in year 2, but don't really seem to have a large change until year 7. After 11 years, they are typically done. I don't know what happens in year 9.

Charted number of players in the league with years played:



The vast majority of DTs are in their first 4 years. This is totaled over 5 years, so to get the average number of players per year, divide by 5.

Charted total rating over the past 5 years with draft position (the clump at the end is UDFAs):



This looks like a bunch of nonsense. I'm hoping that comparing this with other positions (and maybe with some smoothing) will yield some meaningful results.

Cool note: The biggest bust by far is Tyson Jackson. His -43.8 is the 3rd lowest rating of all 395 players that have played in the last 5 years. The 2 guys worse than him were drafted 81st (Roy Miller, -47.1) and 152nd (Antonio Johnson, -46.8). Jackson, as you know, was drafted 3rd.

The best value? No one has been as good as Justin Smith (+169). He was drafted 4th, though. Geno Atkins wasn't drafted until the 120th pick, and has a rating of +125.4.

Anyway, I'm planning on doing all positions, I decided to do DTs first, what with Star coming out and all. I'll post the other positions here as well if people are interested. If not, I'll keep it all to myself.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

May I propose an alternative analysis, magichef? I'm not sure if you have the data to do this or not.

My theory is that there are two reasons to see increases in performance over time (prior to Father Time's inevitable emasculation). First, you have the normal factor of guys gaining more experience and getting more savvy. This is what we think we're seeing in your graph.

However, I think there's another factor in play as well, which is mildly disturbing given your results. I think that the guys who are in their 3rd or 5th or 8th year are likely to be better players overall than the guys in their 1st or 2nd year. They have more innate talent or better work ethics or are smarter or whatever. You have lots of guys who barely make a roster, play a year or two, and then wash out. The guys still playing in Year 7 are better players in general or they wouldn't have survived.

So what this means is that, even if there was no benefit of added experience, your graph should show an increase in performance related to years of experience. This disturbs me because the increase in your graph is somewhat shallow for the first seven years, which probably covers the entire careers of a vast majority of players.

What does this mean? It could possibly mean that there is no real benefit of experience. If you're good, you're good, and the increase we see with added years of tenure is the simple fact that the weaker players are being weeded out of the analysis pool as time goes on.

An alternative analysis would look at each player, and their rankings in their 1st year in the league, 2nd year, and so on. If you want to look at the trend over the first ten years of a player's career, you only examine players with ten years of experience and look at each year of development.

You said you only have five years of data, but I think that would be sufficient. I suspect that most of the benefit of experience occurs in that time frame anyway.

What do you think?

I'm certainly open to it. I have 2008-2012. For guys drafted in 2008, that means their rookie year through their fifth year. For guys drafted in 2003, that would be years 6-10. Would only guys drafted in 2008 be valid for this?

Also, I realized a change I should make. Right now, a reserve player that gets a handful of snaps at the end of a blowout is counted the same as a starter. Rather than counting the number of guys, I should do the number of snaps. I'll fix that tomorrow morning.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Also, are you charting averages or medians? I think median might be preferable. It may not make a huge difference either way.

Interesting stuff, by the way.

Averages. I'll try medians as well.

[htismaqe]

I must say, this is very interesting.

[Strongside]

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I'm certainly open to it. I have 2008-2012. For guys drafted in 2008, that means their rookie year through their fifth year. For guys drafted in 2003, that would be years 6-10. Would only guys drafted in 2008 be valid for this?

Also, I realized a change I should make. Right now, a reserve player that gets a handful of snaps at the end of a blowout is counted the same as a starter. Rather than counting the number of guys, I should do the number of snaps. I'll fix that tomorrow morning.

I think the maximum value would be if you structured it like this:

1st year ratings =

2008 rating for rookies in 2008
2009 rating for rookies in 2009
2010 rating for rookies in 2010
etc.

2nd year ratings =
2009 rating for guys who were rookies in 2008
2010 rating for guys who were rookies in 2009
2011 rating for guys who were rookies in 2010
etc.

and so on.

[ChiefGator]

Very interesting.. keep it up!

Like the suggestions from the crazy, "I've got no debt and so no social responsibility" 50 year old as well.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ChiefGator

Very interesting.. keep it up!

Like the suggestions from the crazy, "I've got no debt and so no social responsibility" 50 year old as well.

I'm as free as a bird now, and this bird you cannot chay-a-aynge, whoa whoa whoa whoa...

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think the maximum value would be if you structured it like this:

1st year ratings =

2008 rating for rookies in 2008
2009 rating for rookies in 2009
2010 rating for rookies in 2010
etc.

2nd year ratings =
2009 rating for guys who were rookies in 2008
2010 rating for guys who were rookies in 2009
2011 rating for guys who were rookies in 2010
etc.

and so on.

That's how it's set up right now.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

That's how it's set up right now.

Oh, okay. Nice work.

Maybe then you develop a family of curves, one that includes guys with 10 year careers, another that includes guys with 9 year careers, and so on. I could be mentally deficient, but I still think we have some pollution by the fact that the left side is going to include weaker players who aren't destined for long careers.

[ChiefGator]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm as free as a bird now, and this bird you cannot chay-a-aynge, whoa whoa whoa whoa...

Debt free in one-three... that's my new resolution for the year.

----

This is very interesting though, keep it up please. Especially once we can compare different positions.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Oh, okay. Nice work.

Maybe then you develop a family of curves, one that includes guys with 10 year careers, another that includes guys with 9 year careers, and so on. I could be mentally deficient, but I still think we have some pollution by the fact that the left side is going to include weaker players who aren't destined for long careers.

Yep, there are a lot of players that didn't do much at all. Maybe implementing a lower threshold of total snaps? Then maybe only the guys who the coaches believe have some sort of promise would get through?

[MagicHef]

I'm a little disappointed no one said anything about my Star comment.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I'm a little disappointed no one said anything about my Star comment.

It sucks.

You want to be negged as well?

[LOCOChief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Defensive tackles very rarely pan out in free agency. I wonder if some of those spikes are due to contract years.

2nd graph, 4-6 years in. Not a spike but more of a leveling out. contract years? probably.

[the Talking Can]

The biggest bust by far is Tyson Jackson.

...