Laugh: Why such a value on 4th rounders? I see some quality left on the board, but the Browns do miss out on some 2nd WR prospects with that curious trade down. I can't answer that until the draft concludes.
I think this is a huge part of "moneyball" coming to the NFL, and I think it is brilliant. DePodesta has identified two critical mistakes other teams make, and has developed strategies to take advantage of them.
1. Teams undervalue draft picks in future years. This has been commented upon a lot, but the draft point system, as reflected by how a lot of teams address the draft,reduce the value of a pick by one round if it is for a future year. What that means is that if a GM makes a "trade down" investment in the first year, he can gain massively disproportionate benefits in future years. And if you do it right, you can keep it going for years, having 5 or so picks in the top 3 rounds each year. That is a monstrous long-term advantage to be gained over other teams.
2. Teams overestimate their own ability to pick "winners". This is the recognition I think is so brilliant. Statistically, we know that year to year, the chance of a drafted player becoming a starter drops from round to round. But after the first three rounds, the dropoff begins flattening out. The chances of finding a starter (or even a contributor) in the fourth isn't that much greater than finding on in the fifth, which isn't that much different from finding one in the sixth, down to the seventh.
Nevertheless, a lot of fans and teams think the smart thing to do is to package a couple of fifths to move up into the fourth, etc.. We hear it all the time when a team has accumulated a lot of picks -- fans and pundits say that you then package them to move up and get "your guy".
"Oh, we have 11 picks -- no way we'll make them all. We'll use them to trade up!"
Big mistake! For the most part, GM's are fooling themselves if they think they've spotted something that everyone else missed. Generally, trade-ups are going to reduce your chances of finding a starter because you are getting fewer tickets in the hopper.
Notice that despite gaining all these picks, we have yet to trade up even once. This is the exact opposite of the last regime!
That's my theory, anyway. So I started looking for support, and here's what I found -- an article by a Harvard statician (gee, what a coincidence), showing that trading
down to get more players actually
increases your chance of finding starters.
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/dont-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft/
Obviously, impact guys may be different, but consider this --
are you more likely to find a starter if you draft one guy in the middle of the 4th, or two guys in the middle of the fifth? The math and history tell us it's the latter.
So, here's my theory on the structural side (as opposed to the talent evaluation side) of football moneyball.
1. Trade for future picks as an investment, then live off the "interest" in future seasons.
2. The draft after the first couple of rounds is basically a numbers game. More picks are better than trading up and having fewer picks.
ETA: Just think if it turns out they are correct on this -- and I think the stats show they are. We will have a tremendous
structural advantage over other teams that fall too much in love with certain guys and waste picks to trade up. Because think of it --
if you do manage to trade up, you're outbidding every single other team in the league -- paying more than every single other team is willing to pay. Realistically, what are the odds that you're "right", and everyone else is wrong?
Stay pat, or take advantage of the patsies who want to trade up. That's how you gain the true advantage.
Fooking brilliant.
